QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl How about: The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines. The Pennsylvania Railroad serves as another example. A 1947 study compared the economic performance of the TI and Q2 steam locomotives to 6000 horsepower sets of diesels. (4 1500 hp freight units and 3 2000 hp passenger units. No distinction was made between builders) On the passenger side, a T1 cost $1.67 per mile to operate and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.30. For freight trains, a Q2 cost $2.37 per mile and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.94. These figures factored in maintenance, fuel, and other related costs, but did not take into account reduced expenses for labor with the elimination of steam helpers, reduced train crews because of multiple unit operation, and fewer trains required by using diesels. A 1951 study, again not distinguishing between builders, put the cost of operating a 1500/1600 hp freight unit at $0.88 per mile, and a 2000 hp passenger unit at $0.73 per mile. As these facts indicate, a railroad could achieve substantial savings in short and long term operating costs by dieselizing as quickly as possible. With the PRR's conservative and "test to death" corporate culture at the time, I have to believe their figures.
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 Wow, another long response BUT you still haven't answered my question. What exactly is your motivation for your thesis and what are you going to do with this "information" within the railroad industry?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it. As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis. Best regards, Michael Sol There is nothing emotional about the statistical evidence that 0% of railroads have come to the same conclusion as you. What "facts" do you need to see.The "historical truths" of the market place are self evident!!! Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:33 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ......anyone on this forum that presents any statistical data published by the railroads.... Uh, gee, Tom, we're still waiting for such statistical refutations.[zzz] You got any you want to share? Reply Edit NW_611 Member sinceOctober 2014 77 posts Posted by NW_611 on Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:33 PM Well, I don't know beans about high finance---the only numbers my education dealt with were vote totals and settlement checks---and this may have been addressed earlier, but let me ask it anyways because I don't recall reading it: How much of a factor in dieselization were the notion(s) that a) coal was either flat or due for major price hikes in availability (thanks for nothing, John L. Lewis!) or b) this new place we call 'Saudi Arabia' has centuries of cheap fuel? I ask because that kind of thinking in a way led to the development of, and the subsequent death of, the Boeing 2707. If I remember correctly, the anecdote about the 2707 (Boeing's SST) was that it was designed to break even/make money on fuel at $0.10/gallon, but that when the Arab states said, "Ooh, embargo!", the thing became absolutely non-viable solely on fuel costs alone. It would appear to this amateur student that, if/once the low(er) diesel fuel costs of the 1950s went away either due to increased consumption or political upheavals, a supposed cost savings of the diesel-electric went away. I suppose that even had railroad management wanted to really make a change---Ross Rowland and the ACE 3000 of which I know very little notwithstanding---the ability to do so was long gone. Sort of like an anecdote I heard where the Carter Administration wanted to bring back the previously-retired Convair B-58A Hustler strategic bomber, but was prevented from doing so by the fact that they had all been scrapped in Arizona. To wedge one other thought in here, is there detailed information/analysis on the effect of "efficient" versus "total" dieselization? Let me try to textualize this: It's the 1950s and so you've dieselized the lightly-trafficked branch line and retired locomotives that were new when Wilson was making his Fourteen Points. You cut down on maintenance and so forth, and maybe even save some doubleheading from time to time. Do those economies transfer (or survive, whatever) when all of a sudden you've got to have five GP7s to do the work of one Class A locomotive? I suppose I'm wondering if there was a true advantage to 'total' dieselization as opposed to a 'no other choice since we can't support Class A operations any more' situation. I'm not trying to be clever or anything; I just wonder if the management types had any other choice than the "one 251/567 fits all" solution. Thanks for any input. Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:15 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, ... In statements 1-3 it's pretty ignorant of you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they were all freaking idiots who didn't realize the were dealing with a new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." What a laugh. Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance? Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any work experience in management within the railroad industry, do you. But it is sure easly for you to sit here and tell us what people in the industry were thinking 50 years ago. You can blather on all you want, but the reality it that you are nothing but a foamer turd. Well Dave, so much for giving management the benefit of the doubt! Best regards, Michael Sol Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:14 PM Ironically, this whole thesis is based on the writings of one engineering firm, which was basically the work of one or two engineers. Add to that, anyone on this forum that presents any statistical data published by the railroads (remember, they're the ones that made the decision and the investment) is immediately refuted as repeating propoganda that the railroads published to cover their decisions, which according to Brown et al, was a bad one. Somehow,I don't see them as a final authority on the matter, they had nothing at stake like the railroad management did. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:04 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then. 2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known? 3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide. 4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error. In statements 1-3 it's pretty ignorant of you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they were all freaking idiots who didn't realize the were dealing with a new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." What a laugh. Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance? Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any work experience in management within the railroad industry, do you. But it is sure easly for you to sit here and tell us what people in the industry were thinking 50 years ago. You can blather on all you want, but the reality it that you are nothing but a foamer turd. LOL! Here I go to the trouble of giving an out for railroad management, allowing for their understandable inability to read the tea leaves of their motive power future, and some kool-aid drinking railroad Lewinsky farts out another substandard insult! Typical! Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:25 PM Private or government owned they all (read everyone of them world wide) came to the same conclusion. There is no data that can refute the fact that no one has chosen steam over diesel/electric or electric. The chinese (whose system was the last to close there foundries) hung on longer than anyone. While still operating steam no longer build them. All the major steam builders tried to build and sell diesels but were too far behind GM in development and market share to remain viable. Me thinks you give to much credit to GM as they do not have a monopoly worldwide. [banghead] While your arguments are compelling no one came to the same conclusion based on the real world market place. It is the market place that ultimately decides in the end. As the steam engine began the demise of the horse drawn tram so has the D/E sounded the death knell for steam.[xx(] Reply GP40-2 Member sinceJuly 2004 803 posts Posted by GP40-2 on Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then. 2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known? 3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide. 4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error. In statements 1-3, you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they had no idea they were dealing with new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing. You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance? Note: I decided on my own to edit this post to be less inflamatory in an effort to be civil in this hotly debated subject. Reply GP40-2 Member sinceJuly 2004 803 posts Posted by GP40-2 on Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:48 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D] My thoughts exactly... Well, I doubt that they qualify as full-fledged thoughts. As I have mentioned before, the decisions of foreign railways, typically government operated, rarely offers a useful guideline for operation of privately-owned railways. That someone might offer foreign railway decisions (as opposed to experience) in the context of an a priori effort to justify something done earlier on American railways is a leap in logic I will have to leave to the obvious Olympic level jumpers on this thread. However, without any data, we do know that, post World War II, the industrial and engineering leadership that had previously substantially reposed in Germany and England, and to a lesser extent in other European countries, had shifted almost entirely to the United States. With a couple of exceptions, German and Japanese scientists in particular weren't as popular as they otherwise might have been. So, focus shifts to the United States as the leader in many areas, including railroad techology and in many cases, the funding for rebuilding and development. At the same time, this incredible "idea" of marketing and development emerged at General Motors. The whole idea of "planned obsolescence". The idea that you didn't let people "buy" cars, you "sold" them cars, bus systems, trucks, railroad locomotives. Bill Gates did not originate the idea of "vaporware" -- promising a feature that wasn't there yet to forestall sales to competitors -- this was developed by General Motors. The steam guys were pretty old fashioned -- their products spoke for themselves. They underestimated the power of "selling." More importantly, they underestimated the power of "dramatized" promises, the "30% return on investment" promised by EMD, the careful adjustment of "ratings" and "comparative ratings" to show the Diesel to its maximum advantage without ever clearly stating the ratings weren't ratings above 20 mph where steam generated significantly better economic and operational performance. You can, indeed, "massage" economic data, and that's exactly what EMD did. Norfolk & Western wasn't the first railroad to see test engines that had been quietly up-rated without disclosure to the buyer. The sales literature promising 20 year economic service lives for road power was never based on a realistic assessment; it was a manufacturer's promise that was not, could not, and has never been kept. There was no basis for the number except that it was the only way the manufacturers could justify to the buyers the higher purchase costs of diesel road power. And particularly, to justify incurring annual finance charges. And, those studies were predicated on not only 20 year service lives, but on financing at 1 and 1.5%, a historical low and a historical anomaly. Would the decision to Dieselize have been the same with a 12 year economic service life at 5%? Well, there is a huge difference in the economic outcomes. And, in fact, there was. We see it in the Railroad ROIs. And that can't be overcome by emotional announcements about "historical truths." The fact is, the promises were so much hot air, backed up by discrete fudging of the data. This probably explains the affinity that several posters have for the proposition. In any case, the sales job worked. Mysteriously, Railroad ROI began to decline. So much for that promise of 30% return on investment. It is not a massaging of data that shows that Dieselization was an economic burden, it is a massaging of reality to say that it did not: It is irrefutable that Railroad ROI declined during this period, and when the second generation came along at a higher interest rate, Railroad ROI declined again, and when the third generation came along at substantially higher interest rates, railroads were pounding on the doors of Congress for relief from their financial crisis. Just a series of identical coincidences, right? Foreign governments no doubt looked to American railroads for guidance and the U.S. Government for funding. Just as the French government extended loans to governments converting to its version of AC electrification, the US government extended cheap "development" loans so that foreign countries could buy EMD products at the sacrifice of domestic steam builders that the US government had no interest in supporting. To the extent that foreign railroads looked at US railroads, and made the assumption, "gee, these guys are the leaders of the industry, who are we to question the American rail industry," it is interesting to see the logic come full circle on this thread -- and it is circular logic -- to say that "it must have been the right decision for American railways, look at all the foreign railways that did it." Now, to the gentleman who insists that this is some "revelation" by Michael Sol and/or H.F. Brown, and that its all personal, and let's make it as personal as possible, here's my response: the discussions about the economic effects of Dieselization were ongoing from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. Brown's paper was one of several that appeared in the best known engineering journals of the time. The debate was both public and extensive and, as I mentioned earlier, subjected to peer review by people actually knowledgeable about the subject and not given to announcing "historical truths" as a substitute for genuine analysis. The fact that you have proclaimed as loudly as you can that you are totally ignorant of that debate and those published discussions offers nothing to either illuminate the discussion or refute Brown, all it does is offer exactly what you say it does: that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter and that by an interesting extension of your claim to ignorance of the debate, that everyone else must be ignorant too. What is remarkable is the chorus of voices all proudly claiming equal ignorance on that well-known debate, and happily offering their own ignorance of that discussion as a virtue in any discussion about it. Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it. As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis. Best regards, Michael Sol Wow, another long response BUT you still haven't answered my question. What exactly is your motivation for your thesis and what are you going to do with this "information" within the railroad industry? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:27 PM Diesel is better. If it wasn't the RR's would still run steam. One thing i like about steam is the FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOFFFFWWWWWWOOOOOOO... Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then. 2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known? 3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide. 4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:32 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer MichaelSol sayeth again, on ad nauseum: "They did NOT cost less to maintain. The fact that it could still be concluded from a discussion that showed the contrary, without any proof offered otherwise, is testamentary to the power of the myth, even among steam fans." Michael, you've proven this to suit yourself, if nobody else. You and your Mr. Brown have made it plain once again that data can be massaged to prove anything you want to prove. I'm with GP40-2; now, what are you going to do with this great railroad management "gotcha"? I said several pages ago that this was what you were after. But he's right - this is an awfully small forum for such a great revelation; why aren't you writing it up for the trade press? Now what? Twenty-three more pages of this drivel? What do you want to prove next? That the sun will rise in the west tomorrow? Got any figures from Brown to work with to help you with that? You've spent 23 pages trying to convince us that (1) you alone pre privy to the Gospel truth in all this; (2) you're the lonely voice in the wilderness; (3) you're smarter than everybody else (both the old managements that made the decisions and all of us on this forum), and (4) everybody is out of step but you and your Messiah, Mr. Brown. But all you've really convinced us of is that you're too stubborn to grasp the historical truth. Old Timer Hey, Old Timer, have you come up with the counter studies yet? NO? You have proven to everyone on this forum that myth repeated enough times will misplace fact-based historical analysis. The amazing thing is that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that this analysis isn't Mr. Sol's, it is Brown's, and it is simply an independent study for an overseas client. It certainly was not intended as a critique of the cult of idiocy known as North American railroading, but you and others on this forum have certainly brought THAT truth to light! Reply Edit MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:22 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D] My thoughts exactly... Well, I doubt that they qualify as full-fledged thoughts. As I have mentioned before, the decisions of foreign railways, typically government operated, rarely offers a useful guideline for operation of privately-owned railways. That someone might offer foreign railway decisions (as opposed to experience) in the context of an a priori effort to justify something done earlier on American railways is a leap in logic I will have to leave to the obvious Olympic level jumpers on this thread. However, without any data, we do know that, post World War II, the industrial and engineering leadership that had previously substantially reposed in Germany and England, and to a lesser extent in other European countries, had shifted almost entirely to the United States. With a couple of exceptions, German and Japanese scientists in particular weren't as popular as they otherwise might have been. So, focus shifts to the United States as the leader in many areas, including railroad techology and in many cases, the funding for rebuilding and development. At the same time, this incredible "idea" of marketing and development emerged at General Motors. The whole idea of "planned obsolescence". The idea that you didn't let people "buy" cars, you "sold" them cars, bus systems, trucks, railroad locomotives. Bill Gates did not originate the idea of "vaporware" -- promising a feature that wasn't there yet to forestall sales to competitors -- this was developed by General Motors. The steam guys were pretty old fashioned -- their products spoke for themselves. They underestimated the power of "selling." More importantly, they underestimated the power of "dramatized" promises, the "30% return on investment" promised by EMD, the careful adjustment of "ratings" and "comparative ratings" to show the Diesel to its maximum advantage without ever clearly stating the ratings weren't ratings above 20 mph where steam generated significantly better economic and operational performance. You can, indeed, "massage" economic data, and that's exactly what EMD did. Norfolk & Western wasn't the first railroad to see test engines that had been quietly up-rated without disclosure to the buyer. The sales literature promising 20 year economic service lives for road power was never based on a realistic assessment; it was a manufacturer's promise that was not, could not, and has never been kept. There was no basis for the number except that it was the only way the manufacturers could justify to the buyers the higher purchase costs of diesel road power. And particularly, to justify incurring annual finance charges. And, those studies were predicated on not only 20 year service lives, but on financing at 1 and 1.5%, historical lows and historical anomalies. Would the decision to Dieselize have been the same with a 12 year economic service life at 5%? Well, there is a huge difference in the economic outcomes. And, in fact, there was. We see it in the Railroad ROIs. And that can't be overcome by emotional announcements about "historical truths." The fact is, the promises were so much hot air, backed up by discrete fudging of the data. This probably explains the affinity that several posters have for the proposition. In any case, the sales job worked. Mysteriously, Railroad ROI began to decline. So much for that promise of 30% return on investment. It is not a massaging of data that shows that Dieselization was an economic burden, it is a massaging of reality to say that it did not: It is irrefutable that Railroad ROI declined during this period, and when the second generation came along at a higher interest rate, Railroad ROI declined again, and when the third generation came along at substantially higher interest rates, railroads were pounding on the doors of Congress for relief from their financial crisis. Just a series of identical coincidences, right? Foreign governments no doubt looked to American railroads for guidance and the U.S. Government for funding. Just as the French government extended loans to governments converting to its version of AC electrification, the US government extended cheap "development" loans so that foreign countries could buy EMD products at the sacrifice of domestic steam builders that the US government had no interest in supporting. To the extent that foreign railroads looked at US railroads, and made the assumption, "gee, these guys are the leaders of the industry, who are we to question the American rail industry," it is interesting to see the logic come full circle on this thread -- and it is circular logic -- to say that "it must have been the right decision for American railways, look at all the foreign railways that did it" even as foreign railways looked at American railways and said "it must have been the right decision, American railways did it." Now, to the gentleman who insists that this is some "revelation" by Michael Sol and/or H.F. Brown, and that its all personal, and let's make it as personal as possible, here's my response: the discussions about the economic effects of Dieselization were ongoing from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. Brown's paper was one of several that appeared in the best known engineering journals of the time. The debate was both public and extensive and, as I mentioned earlier, subjected to peer review by people actually knowledgeable about the subject and not given to announcing "historical truths" as a substitute for genuine analysis. The fact that you have proclaimed as loudly as you can that you are totally ignorant of that debate and those published discussions offers nothing to either illuminate the discussion or refute Brown, all it does is offer exactly what you say it does: that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter and that by an interesting extension of your claim to ignorance of the debate, that everyone else must be ignorant too. What is remarkable is the chorus of voices all proudly claiming equal ignorance on that well-known debate, and happily offering their own ignorance of that discussion as a virtue in any discussion about it. Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it. As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:51 AM Now do you understand why Dylan Thomas said" Let's kill all the lawyers, lets kill them tonight!!"[:-,] As sung by the Eagles in a song called Get over it. As always ENJOY[8D] Reply GP40-2 Member sinceJuly 2004 803 posts Posted by GP40-2 on Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:25 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Old Timer, Michael is a lawyer in Montana....he isn’t supposed to say anything factual.[:D] Ed Oh my God, that statement is freaking priceless...[(-D] Reply ValleyX Member sinceApril 2001 From: US 1,103 posts Posted by ValleyX on Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by ValorStorm But I did want to mention that with steam, at least in North American practice, engineers typically had their own assigned locomotive. This contributed to the inflexibility of steam. I don't know if anyone addressed this point, because, face it, this is a really looooooong thread. I started getting kinda' dizzy! It was, and I'm guessing, somewhere around the turn of the 20th century, that the practice of engineers being assigned to a specific engine was discontinued. Reply edblysard Member sinceMarch 2002 9,265 posts Posted by edblysard on Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:08 AM Old Timer, Michael is a lawyer in Montana....he isn’t supposed to say anything factual.[:D] Ed 23 17 46 11 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:13 AM MichaelSol sayeth again, on ad nauseum: "They did NOT cost less to maintain. The fact that it could still be concluded from a discussion that showed the contrary, without any proof offered otherwise, is testamentary to the power of the myth, even among steam fans." Michael, you've proven this to suit yourself, if nobody else. You and your Mr. Brown have made it plain once again that data can be massaged to prove anything you want to prove. I'm with GP40-2; now, what are you going to do with this great railroad management "gotcha"? I said several pages ago that this was what you were after. But he's right - this is an awfully small forum for such a great revelation; why aren't you writing it up for the trade press? Now what? Twenty-three more pages of this drivel? What do you want to prove next? That the sun will rise in the west tomorrow? Got any figures from Brown to work with to help you with that? You've spent 23 pages trying to convince us that (1) you alone pre privy to the Gospel truth in all this; (2) you're the lonely voice in the wilderness; (3) you're smarter than everybody else (both the old managements that made the decisions and all of us on this forum), and (4) everybody is out of step but you and your Messiah, Mr. Brown. But all you've really convinced us of is that you're too stubborn to grasp the historical truth. Old Timer Reply Edit GP40-2 Member sinceJuly 2004 803 posts Posted by GP40-2 on Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:31 AM Ok Michael, so according to your thesis, every management level railroader in the world fell for this evil ploy to dieselize. More importantly, we want to know what you plan to do with this amazing discovery of yours. I mean, after all, why keep it on a relatively obscure foamer forum. Are you planning talks at Harvard B School or the Wharton School? How about publishing it in the Wall Street Journal or Business Week? I'm sure all the current railroad CEOs would love to know how not to keep making the same mistakes over and over...the possibilities are endless. Come on and tell us what you have planned! Inquiring minds would like to know! Reply GP40-2 Member sinceJuly 2004 803 posts Posted by GP40-2 on Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:09 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D] My thoughts exactly... Reply ValorStorm Member sinceMarch 2002 From: MRL 3rd Sub MP117 "No defects, repeat, no defects" 360 posts Posted by ValorStorm on Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:07 AM Perhaps MichaelSol's preceding comment should be the closing remarks for this thread. They have that certain "timbre." But I did want to mention that with steam, at least in North American practice, engineers typically had their own assigned locomotive. This contributed to the inflexibility of steam. I don't know if anyone addressed this point, because, face it, this is a really looooooong thread. I started getting kinda' dizzy! Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:59 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl After 23 pages, we've looped around to the fact that diesel locomotives DID cost less to operate and maintain than the steamers they replaced. Actually, what we "looped around" to is to refute the initial propositions that Dieselization was a big factor in employment cost reductions and enjoyed substantial maintenance cost advantages, that these claims were, in fact, untrue. Dieselization enjoyed a fuel cost advantage, water cost advantage and engine house advantages. Those were more than offset by financing charges, maintenance cost increases, and lubricant cost increases. Further, both fuel and financing charges were, during the study period, at the best advantage for Dieselization that they would ever be. They did NOT cost less to maintain. The fact that it could still be concluded from a discussion that showed the contrary, without any proof offered otherwise, is testamentary to the power of the myth, even among steam fans. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX Yes, and it's useless..... As opposed to these front few pages' threads.....??? "Are there still Boomers out there...Next job any Road?" " (Off Topic)How old are you?" "Depot Diner & Coffee Shop " "Recently I Saw . . . . . . ." "Friendlyst Railroad" "Is BNSF going to have an exec. scheme? " (I'm on pins and needles for that one!) "British Railway Operations" "Train Trivia Updated: 1/20/06" "just wanted to say to you all" "O.T. Nikon Discontinues Production of Most Film Cameras" "why don't Amtrak trains run backward? " "Why streetcars nearly vanished..." "The NEW Amtrak customer SERVICE" "Would you believe..... (a little humor) " . . . . . . How about a little "live and let live"? If you don't like a topic, don't participate in it. Frankly, if the price differential between coal and oil grows past $20 or $30/mmBtu over the long term, whose to say steam won't return? "Are there Boomers out there?" Well this IS a railroad fan forum and some insight from people inside the industry is always helpful. " (Off Topic)How old are you?" Some people may feel this is too personal "Depot Diner & Coffee Shop " Considering how long this thread has been running, you may be outvoted on this one "Recently I Saw . . . . . . ." Encouraging others to tell us about unusual sightings on the rails? Can't imagine railfans wouldn't be interested in that. "Friendlyst Railroad" You mean besides the spelling error? "Is BNSF going to have an exec. scheme? " (I'm on pins and needles for that one!) Discussing paint schemes of a railroad on a railfan forum board. Hardly sounds off topic. "British Railway Operations" The first initials after the http:// are "WWW" which stands for world wide web, not US wide web. "Train Trivia Updated: 1/20/06" Well, not really my personal interest, but others seem to enjoy it. "just wanted to say to you all" Introducing yourself on an open forum board. Go figure. "O.T. Nikon Discontinues Production of Most Film Cameras" Talking about changes in the production of cameras on a railfan forum board. You'd think railfans take pictures or something. ........ Oh wait...... "why don't Amtrak trains run backward? " Discussing the method of a CURRENT operation (PS Amtrak IS still a railroad) "Why streetcars nearly vanished..." You mean streetcars DIDN'T run on rails???? "The NEW Amtrak customer SERVICE" Again, Amtrak IS a railroad "Would you believe..... (a little humor) " Have to admit, this thread is giving that one a run for the humor award. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:14 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr uh oh. I see TomDiehl is viewing this thread.... (cementmixr scurrying for cover...) [:D] Why would you "scurry for cover?" This is better than the "Would you believe" thread for a little humor. After 23 pages, we've looped around to the fact that diesel locomotives DID cost less to operate and maintain than the steamers they replaced. However, in the US, the railroads did it too quickly, and the replacement of the steam, before the end of their useful life, ended up negating, and in most cases, exceeding the saving afforded by the change. Of course, there's no input as to the thoughts and criteria that the railroad executives used in evaluating the change or the speed of the change, just a bunch of speculations. There may have been MANY factors that Brown et al didn't consider in their report, that the railroads felt were more important than short term profits. Personally, i thought the railroads in this country changed over too fast, but I must qualify that remark with the statement that I am a steam fan, and this may skew my opinion on the matter. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:02 PM uh oh. I see TomDiehl is viewing this thread.... (cementmixr scurrying for cover...) [:D] Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:00 PM How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D] Reply « First«78910111213»Last » Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » 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 More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it. As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis. Best regards, Michael Sol
Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ......anyone on this forum that presents any statistical data published by the railroads....
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, ... In statements 1-3 it's pretty ignorant of you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they were all freaking idiots who didn't realize the were dealing with a new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." What a laugh. Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance? Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any work experience in management within the railroad industry, do you. But it is sure easly for you to sit here and tell us what people in the industry were thinking 50 years ago. You can blather on all you want, but the reality it that you are nothing but a foamer turd.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, ...
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path.
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then. 2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known? 3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide. 4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error. In statements 1-3 it's pretty ignorant of you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they were all freaking idiots who didn't realize the were dealing with a new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." What a laugh. Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance? Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any work experience in management within the railroad industry, do you. But it is sure easly for you to sit here and tell us what people in the industry were thinking 50 years ago. You can blather on all you want, but the reality it that you are nothing but a foamer turd.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered? 1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then. 2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known? 3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide. 4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D] My thoughts exactly... Well, I doubt that they qualify as full-fledged thoughts. As I have mentioned before, the decisions of foreign railways, typically government operated, rarely offers a useful guideline for operation of privately-owned railways. That someone might offer foreign railway decisions (as opposed to experience) in the context of an a priori effort to justify something done earlier on American railways is a leap in logic I will have to leave to the obvious Olympic level jumpers on this thread. However, without any data, we do know that, post World War II, the industrial and engineering leadership that had previously substantially reposed in Germany and England, and to a lesser extent in other European countries, had shifted almost entirely to the United States. With a couple of exceptions, German and Japanese scientists in particular weren't as popular as they otherwise might have been. So, focus shifts to the United States as the leader in many areas, including railroad techology and in many cases, the funding for rebuilding and development. At the same time, this incredible "idea" of marketing and development emerged at General Motors. The whole idea of "planned obsolescence". The idea that you didn't let people "buy" cars, you "sold" them cars, bus systems, trucks, railroad locomotives. Bill Gates did not originate the idea of "vaporware" -- promising a feature that wasn't there yet to forestall sales to competitors -- this was developed by General Motors. The steam guys were pretty old fashioned -- their products spoke for themselves. They underestimated the power of "selling." More importantly, they underestimated the power of "dramatized" promises, the "30% return on investment" promised by EMD, the careful adjustment of "ratings" and "comparative ratings" to show the Diesel to its maximum advantage without ever clearly stating the ratings weren't ratings above 20 mph where steam generated significantly better economic and operational performance. You can, indeed, "massage" economic data, and that's exactly what EMD did. Norfolk & Western wasn't the first railroad to see test engines that had been quietly up-rated without disclosure to the buyer. The sales literature promising 20 year economic service lives for road power was never based on a realistic assessment; it was a manufacturer's promise that was not, could not, and has never been kept. There was no basis for the number except that it was the only way the manufacturers could justify to the buyers the higher purchase costs of diesel road power. And particularly, to justify incurring annual finance charges. And, those studies were predicated on not only 20 year service lives, but on financing at 1 and 1.5%, a historical low and a historical anomaly. Would the decision to Dieselize have been the same with a 12 year economic service life at 5%? Well, there is a huge difference in the economic outcomes. And, in fact, there was. We see it in the Railroad ROIs. And that can't be overcome by emotional announcements about "historical truths." The fact is, the promises were so much hot air, backed up by discrete fudging of the data. This probably explains the affinity that several posters have for the proposition. In any case, the sales job worked. Mysteriously, Railroad ROI began to decline. So much for that promise of 30% return on investment. It is not a massaging of data that shows that Dieselization was an economic burden, it is a massaging of reality to say that it did not: It is irrefutable that Railroad ROI declined during this period, and when the second generation came along at a higher interest rate, Railroad ROI declined again, and when the third generation came along at substantially higher interest rates, railroads were pounding on the doors of Congress for relief from their financial crisis. Just a series of identical coincidences, right? Foreign governments no doubt looked to American railroads for guidance and the U.S. Government for funding. Just as the French government extended loans to governments converting to its version of AC electrification, the US government extended cheap "development" loans so that foreign countries could buy EMD products at the sacrifice of domestic steam builders that the US government had no interest in supporting. To the extent that foreign railroads looked at US railroads, and made the assumption, "gee, these guys are the leaders of the industry, who are we to question the American rail industry," it is interesting to see the logic come full circle on this thread -- and it is circular logic -- to say that "it must have been the right decision for American railways, look at all the foreign railways that did it." Now, to the gentleman who insists that this is some "revelation" by Michael Sol and/or H.F. Brown, and that its all personal, and let's make it as personal as possible, here's my response: the discussions about the economic effects of Dieselization were ongoing from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. Brown's paper was one of several that appeared in the best known engineering journals of the time. The debate was both public and extensive and, as I mentioned earlier, subjected to peer review by people actually knowledgeable about the subject and not given to announcing "historical truths" as a substitute for genuine analysis. The fact that you have proclaimed as loudly as you can that you are totally ignorant of that debate and those published discussions offers nothing to either illuminate the discussion or refute Brown, all it does is offer exactly what you say it does: that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter and that by an interesting extension of your claim to ignorance of the debate, that everyone else must be ignorant too. What is remarkable is the chorus of voices all proudly claiming equal ignorance on that well-known debate, and happily offering their own ignorance of that discussion as a virtue in any discussion about it. Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it. As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D] My thoughts exactly...
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb How is is possible that vitually every railway system in the world has followed this path when statisticaly it is the wrong path. [?] Whether it was Diesel or Electric none are steam anymore with a very few exceptions? [?] As always ENJOY [8D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer MichaelSol sayeth again, on ad nauseum: "They did NOT cost less to maintain. The fact that it could still be concluded from a discussion that showed the contrary, without any proof offered otherwise, is testamentary to the power of the myth, even among steam fans." Michael, you've proven this to suit yourself, if nobody else. You and your Mr. Brown have made it plain once again that data can be massaged to prove anything you want to prove. I'm with GP40-2; now, what are you going to do with this great railroad management "gotcha"? I said several pages ago that this was what you were after. But he's right - this is an awfully small forum for such a great revelation; why aren't you writing it up for the trade press? Now what? Twenty-three more pages of this drivel? What do you want to prove next? That the sun will rise in the west tomorrow? Got any figures from Brown to work with to help you with that? You've spent 23 pages trying to convince us that (1) you alone pre privy to the Gospel truth in all this; (2) you're the lonely voice in the wilderness; (3) you're smarter than everybody else (both the old managements that made the decisions and all of us on this forum), and (4) everybody is out of step but you and your Messiah, Mr. Brown. But all you've really convinced us of is that you're too stubborn to grasp the historical truth. Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Old Timer, Michael is a lawyer in Montana....he isn’t supposed to say anything factual.[:D] Ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by ValorStorm But I did want to mention that with steam, at least in North American practice, engineers typically had their own assigned locomotive. This contributed to the inflexibility of steam. I don't know if anyone addressed this point, because, face it, this is a really looooooong thread. I started getting kinda' dizzy!
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl After 23 pages, we've looped around to the fact that diesel locomotives DID cost less to operate and maintain than the steamers they replaced.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX Yes, and it's useless..... As opposed to these front few pages' threads.....??? "Are there still Boomers out there...Next job any Road?" " (Off Topic)How old are you?" "Depot Diner & Coffee Shop " "Recently I Saw . . . . . . ." "Friendlyst Railroad" "Is BNSF going to have an exec. scheme? " (I'm on pins and needles for that one!) "British Railway Operations" "Train Trivia Updated: 1/20/06" "just wanted to say to you all" "O.T. Nikon Discontinues Production of Most Film Cameras" "why don't Amtrak trains run backward? " "Why streetcars nearly vanished..." "The NEW Amtrak customer SERVICE" "Would you believe..... (a little humor) " . . . . . . How about a little "live and let live"? If you don't like a topic, don't participate in it. Frankly, if the price differential between coal and oil grows past $20 or $30/mmBtu over the long term, whose to say steam won't return?
QUOTE: Originally posted by ValleyX Yes, and it's useless.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr uh oh. I see TomDiehl is viewing this thread.... (cementmixr scurrying for cover...) [:D]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.