Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

The Clinchfield was the only railroad I know of to put diesel controls in a steamer (its excursion 4-6-0) which regularly ran with an F-7B(?) controlled from the steamer in excursion and Sante Claus service.

Thanks for the tip, Dave. Do you know what year(s) this co-operation occured, and any details as to operational problems?

Here's the point I'm trying to make: Since one of the major selling points of diesel over steam was the ability to add horsepower at will e.g. MU'ing, all controlled by a single engine crew, what if diesels had been added soley to supplement the horsepower of the still new modern steamers by adding diesel controls to the steamers, rather than diesels being bought en masse to replace the steamers? Now you can run those longer heavier consists while still using the steamers, simpy add a few "B" units as needed. You're continuing to utilize the depreciable lifespan of the steamers (so no wasted investment there), and you're purchasing diesels incrementally as cash flow allows rather than going into debt for large lot purchases of diesels.

One of the cost savings of diesel/electric(DE) vs. steam (ST) is that ST's are very thirsty. Depending on the territory and if you had no track pans for water pichup you had to stop and water your Iron Horse. If you did have water pans you still needed coal alot more often than a diesel needs fuel oil. When switched from ST to DE they eliminated all the water towers, all the coaling and or the many oiling stations and related personel. The first FT's proved they could operate 24/7 with only crew change. ST on a good day was available 12 of 24. Many roads replace steam 2 to1.Without the inherant cost savings of diesilization the books would have looked much worse. [2c] I'll get off my [soapbox] now ..Thank you for this disscusion. as always ENJOY

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Techguy raises an interesting point that may not have been a factor 50+ years ago but is a real issue now: environmental concerns and EPA regulations. When you consider that the Green Goat and various other low-emission designs have been developed to lower emissions compared to existing diesel locomotives, it would be difficult to see how steam locomotives could have their emissions lowered to Tier 0 or Tier 1 levels in a similar fashion. It would probably take a lot more than a skilled fireman and overfire jets to cut smoke and emissions to that level.

[MichaelSol]

Anthony,

One problem with the constant dollar approach is that it assumes inflation operates equally on all costs. As I mentioned above, this can lead to wildly erroneous conclusions, and it has done so here where your figures suggest that the overall direct costs associated with motive power were about the same after dieselization was completed as before it started. Fuel being one of the primary components of the cost calculation, the constant dollar approach assumes that the 1962 fuel cost figure includes an inflation rate of that was 175% of the 1944 figure, because of the general rate of inflation.

However, diesel fuel for railroad purposes in 1962 was only approximately 107% of the cost per gallon as in 1944, an extremely tiny inflation in cost, about .04% per year. This is why our figures diverge. The constant dollar estimation grossly understimates the actual fuel cost used in your cost per net ton calculation.

So, for instance, when Milwaukee's real-time operating costs show that net Tons decreased by 24.49%, 1945-1962, and that fuel costs declined by 24.88%, we can't change that correlation by using a constant dollar estimation based on the general inflation rate. Rather, what we see is that if we take into account that constant dollar costs relating to diesel fuel costs alone, Net Tons decreased by 24.49% and fuel costs, adjusted, decreased 26.6%..

Using this sampling, this suggests that Dieselization accounted for virtually no savings in fuel costs whatsoever, and that claimed savings were based instead on an entirely different consideration: less tonnage carried.

Now, when the figures for costs/net ton are revised to show the true impact of fuel costs, you will see a considerable increase, in real dollar terms, in the direct costs of motive power, over the period 1944-1962. I will look at this more when I get home this evening.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr
As for operation, if I understand correctly, the little lever on the special controller was simply hard-connected to the main throttle level by a link and pin - Is that right? If so, that's a nice simple solution.

Basically, yes. On the outside it seemed like a remarkably elegant solution to the problem. The same idea was adapted to the Boxcabs a few years later, and so the entire Electric road fleet could operate in conjunction with diesels.

That may indeed be a coffee cup in the photo. The engineer, Larry (whose last name escapes me momentarily), was quite a coffee drinker. He was retiring soon after I took this photo, and somehow it came out on this trip that in his 45 years with the railroad, he had never ridden in a Company Business Car. So, arrangements were made that he could go back and have a coffee break in Chairman Quinn's Business Car "Milwaukee" which was on this train, while the Traveling Engineer took the train on. I went back with him and we had a retirement coffee. He was "grading" the Traveling Engineer as he took the slack out: "He'd better not spill a drop," as he held his coffee cup.

An old passenger engine engineer grading a younger Traveling Engineer who likely had never operated passenger service.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Valleyline]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan
[Profit was the biggest motivator for switching to Deisels, it was cheaper in manhours and that's it. if companies were more worried about pulling power and abilities, then steam would still be the rulling choice, but alas it's 75-80% cheaper to operate a deisel in manhours than it is a Steamer, and that equates to more money for the company, which then equates to more money for the execs.

It also equates to saving the railroads from extinction.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Valleyline

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan
[Profit was the biggest motivator for switching to Deisels, it was cheaper in manhours and that's it. if companies were more worried about pulling power and abilities, then steam would still be the rulling choice, but alas it's 75-80% cheaper to operate a deisel in manhours than it is a Steamer, and that equates to more money for the company, which then equates to more money for the execs.

It also equates to saving the railroads from extinction.

Dramatic statements, except that the statement "it's 75-80% cheaper to operate a deisel in manhours than it is a Steamer" is false. If you can just make stuff up, I guess anything saved railroads from extinction.

We know the numbers and we're not speculating like this comment obviously does. Nothing like that productivity increase occured. That's the problem, isn' it?

I have no reason to assume Milwaukee was much different than most railroads, its locomotive fleet during the period 1944-1962 decreased by 41%. Train crew employment Class I railroads decreased 1944-1972 by only 43% (and rail traffic was back up from 1962 levels) the worst improvement in all classes of railroad employment during that time frame.

Notwithstanding romantic visions of crew savings by early dieselization advocates, perpetuated today by railfans, where are the economic results that support these contentions?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Tharmeni]

Whatever happened to the ACE3000, the computerized steam engine proposed by a group in Ohio in the 1980s? Did they ever build a prototype?

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tharmeni

Whatever happened to the ACE3000, the computerized steam engine proposed by a group in Ohio in the 1980s? Did they ever build a prototype?

It was never built. They did some testing with the C&O 614.
I think Babcock and Wilcox were the first to pull out, and possibly thats why BN and CSX got cold feet.

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Train crew employment Class I railroads decreased 1944-1972 by only 43% (and rail traffic was back up from 1962 levels) the worst improvement in all classes of railroad employment during that time frame. Best regards, Michael Sol

I believe several States still had "Full Crew Laws" in 1972, forcing railroads to operate with 5 and 6 man crews. It was the service personal the railroads cut because of steam.

[Tharmeni]

I know BN was intrigued and was exploring ways to use coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin to fuel its locomotive fleet. Too bad it never worked out.

[daveklepper]

One posting said that the FT's were worn out in ten years and thus needed replacement. WRONG! The reason they were replaced was that two GP-9's could do the work of three FT units, saving fuel and maintenance. In many cases if not most, the new units were actually remanufactured units with trucks and many other parts taken off the old locomotives. The Boston and Maine for one, did not consider its FT's worn out but rather that the greater efficiency of the new units made replacement economically sound. With proper maintenance, plus operation within the rules (no running continuously with the amp meter in the red), first and second generation EMD units could last indefinitely. I won't guarantee this about today's locomotives or those of other builders. There are GP-7's and GP-9's running in good condition today. They were not replaced because the added hauling capacity for unit reduction of later units was not an advantage in their particular present application.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tharmeni

Whatever happened to the ACE3000, the computerized steam engine proposed by a group in Ohio in the 1980s? Did they ever build a prototype?

Ross Roland apparently couldn't generate enough interest to latch on to enough capital to build a prototype.

I attended one of Ross's presentations way back when. It was an interesting, inovative idea, but, a the end of the day, it essentially was a 100+ ft long, 300+ ton GP40 with a fairly small fuel savings. The guys I worked for who were there for the steam/diesel transition shuddered at the idea of steam returning. I remember one guy saying, "The only good steam locomotive is one with 3 feet of concrete in the boiler."

[TomDiehl]

At first, I couldn't figure out why a Steam vs Diesel post would go 16 pages. This post is roll-on-the-floor-laughing hilarious.

Blaming the railroad's downturn on the steam to diesel transition. So when does that Kalmbach book "Diesel Victory" come out?

Michael, you should be writing comedy. Especially the way you're leading these people down the garden path.

You're not getting a piece of the action for selling that book, are you Michael?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73
It was the service personal the railroads cut because of steam.

Wouldn't there have been a substantial cut because of the significant drop in carloadings?

This is the problem, while there may be some credit to dieselization, there is a tendency, almost an effort, to take all the credit for all personnel reductions during this period without recognizing that it could not possibly be true. And that still does not explain why roundhouse employment -- machinists boilermakers, electricians, etc. -- fell by the second smallest amount of all railroad employment categories.

The statistical fact is that, had railroads achieved employment "efficiencies" in general that paralleled those associated with the Dieselization process, all American railroads would have been bankrupt .

That is, fortunately American railroads were able to achieve employment reductions in other areas far in excess of what they were able to achieve through Dieselization. It was that effort, not Dieselization, which saved American railroads from near certain bankruptcy as the result of the decline in carloadings.

The puzzler is, despite the clearly developed statistical record, Dieselization gets credit, and nothing else that railroads did, far more efffectively, gets any credit at all for what was by and large a successful retrenchment of the industry in the face of daunting challenges.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

One posting said that the FT's were worn out in ten years and thus needed replacement. WRONG! The reason they were replaced was that two GP-9's could do the work of three FT units, saving fuel and maintenance. In many cases if not most, the new units were actually remanufactured units with trucks and many other parts taken off the old locomotives. The Boston and Maine for one, did not consider its FT's worn out but rather that the greater efficiency of the new units made replacement economically sound. With proper maintenance, plus operation within the rules (no running continuously with the amp meter in the red), first and second generation EMD units could last indefinitely. I won't guarantee this about today's locomotives or those of other builders. There are GP-7's and GP-9's running in good condition today. They were not replaced because the added hauling capacity for unit reduction of later units was not an advantage in their particular present application.

Dave,

Click on the Western Pacific dieselization link a page or two back. The verbetum statement is that WP's FT's were in need of replacement in a very short period of time. Note that it is "need" of replacement, not a trading up to GP's.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

Techguy raises an interesting point that may not have been a factor 50+ years ago but is a real issue now: environmental concerns and EPA regulations. When you consider that the Green Goat and various other low-emission designs have been developed to lower emissions compared to existing diesel locomotives, it would be difficult to see how steam locomotives could have their emissions lowered to Tier 0 or Tier 1 levels in a similar fashion. It would probably take a lot more than a skilled fireman and overfire jets to cut smoke and emissions to that level.

I have wondered about that too. It is my feeling that if a coal fired power plant can meet regs, a coal fired locomotive can also. Where I believe power plants and locomotives would differ is that new power plants will have to go the gasification or CFB route to be compliant in the future, while locomotives will have to go coal liquification, coal/water slurry, or synthetic coal.

Liquified coal products can be used in compression ignition engines, so diesel-electrics would continue to rule for this coal product. The coal water slurry and synthetic coal are better suited for steam boilers, so any locomotives using coal/water slurry and syncoal would be the classis reciprocating steam locomotives, direct drive steam turbines, and/or steam turbine-electric locomotives aka Jawn Henry knockoffs. The latter could also fit into the Green Goat mold of locomotive, further reducing emissions per unit of energy output.

It all comes down to price per mmBtu's and the comparitive price in relation to petroleum. The coal/water slurry proponents claim they are competitive with oil prices at $14 a barrel and above. The ACCP syncoal proponents claimed that synthetic coal (which has had most of it's ash, metals, and moisture removed) can be had for under $2.50/mmBtu's. If I remember correctly, synthetic diesel derived from coal can be competitive with petroleum at $30 a barrel. Compare that to oil prices that look now like they'll stay above $40 a barrel over the long term, and the comparative cost of diesel fuel at $15.00/mmBtu, and it's easy to see why interest in coal for vehicle/locomotive propulsion is being sparked.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tharmeni

I know BN was intrigued and was exploring ways to use coal from Wyoming's Powder River Basin to fuel its locomotive fleet. Too bad it never worked out.

I thought I had read somewhere that PRB coal was not the best type for a steam locomotive?

[MichaelSol]

Regarding Anthony's prior estimation of cost per revenue ton of freight, as the result of dieselization, based upon "constant dollars" as I mentioned, "constant dollar" analysis of commodity interactions with inflation is problematic, particularly where petroleum costs are involved as petroleum based products rarely track inflation: they either act as a brake or a driver.

It turns out that this is particularly true during this era. So, the 1962 general costs being 1.75% of the 1944 costs is not useful, because 1962 diesel fuel costs were only approximately 1.07% of 1944 prices. Further, financing charges can't really be assessed on a constant dollar basis because in this particular instance, they didn't exist for the most part in 1944. That is to say, in 1962, since these dollars didn't exist as a drag on earnings in 1944, to include them as discounted in 1945 dollars discounts the effect of financing on the cost of dieselization entirely, as though it didn't exist at all.

However, Anthony's figures for cost per net ton, 1944-1948 are valid: They average about $0.44 per net ton. This is $0.0012 per net ton-mile.

The problem for "constant dollar" analysis is trying to figure out really what the 1962 dollar equivalents would be, for comparison purposes. Using the revised "inflation" figures, and counting existing financing charges that existed in 1944, but existing financing charges as they existed in 1962, without "correction" since for the most part there was not much to correct, we can see the following:

In constant dollars as best we can estimate:
Cost per net- ton, 1945 $0.44
Cost per net-ton, 1962 $0.46

Actual 1962 cost: $0.75 per net ton.

The cost of Dieselization added to the cost of operations.

Similarly, applying the adjustments to put everythng in terms of 1945 dollars as best we can, revising Anthony's figures in particular to account for the different rate of cost incease for diesel fuel:

1945 costs per net ton-mile: $0.0012
1962 costs per net ton-mile $0.0013

Actual 1962 costs per net ton-mile, $0.0021

In constant dollars, Milwaukee saved $8,769,401.68 in combined fuel and locomotive maintenance costs, about 40% of its 1945 costs. When the drop in tonnage carried is factored in, the real savings were about $6,622,043.72, or 30%.

However, the financing charges incurred added $9,698,001in annual charges over the financing existing in 1945.

The financing charges clearly exceeded the savings.

The Milwaukee may not be representative. Despite its losses connected with Dieselization, its Freight Operating Ratio improved by 2.1% over the period 1945 to 1962, a significant improvement. Other railroads directly suffered during this period. Great Northern, for instance, suffered a 2% decline in its Operating Ratio over the same period.

The argument that Dieselization benefitted the American railroad industry, notwithstanding strong beliefs to the contrary, is difficult to support by reference to the statistical record.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Milwaukee had converted any number of steam engines to oil, no doubt much easier to convert to electronic controls than coal-fired machines.

Why would oil-fired steamers be easier to retrofit with a Diesel Synchronous Controller (DSC?) than coal fired locomotives? Are you refering to stoker-fired engines or hand fired engines, or is there no difference when comteplating DSC for coal-fired vs oil-fired steamers?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Milwaukee had converted any number of steam engines to oil, no doubt much easier to convert to electronic controls than coal-fired machines.

Why would oil-fired steamers be easier to retrofit with a Diesel Synchronous Controller (DSC?) than coal fired locomotives? Are you refering to stoker-fired engines or hand fired engines, or is there no difference when comteplating DSC for coal-fired vs oil-fired steamers?

Well, that's a good question. My perception is that stoker-fired coal engines would be slower reacting than pressure-fired oil engines, but I've never seen them work. Don't know.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

TomDiehl sayeth:

"At first, I couldn't figure out why a Steam vs Diesel post would go 16 pages. This post is roll-on-the-floor-laughing hilarious.

"Blaming the railroad's downturn on the steam to diesel transition. So when does that Kalmbach book "Diesel Victory" come out?

"Michael, you should be writing comedy. Especially the way you're leading these people down the garden path.

"You're not getting a piece of the action for selling that book, are you Michael?"

At last. Somebody else who gets it.

Thanks, Tom.

Old Timer

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol[/i]


Notwithstanding romantic visions of crew savings by early dieselization advocates, perpetuated today by railfans, where are the economic results that support these contentions?

Best regards, Michael Sol

There is nothing romantic abuot the dramatic fact that only tourist lines still opperate steam today. The economic results are now writen in the history books and the facts can not be changed. It was no one single advantage but there overall cost reduction. While this no reflection on you Michael we are drowning in both acid rain and possible glodal warming. There are no clean burning coal power plants or would there be steam engines. At this point in time they are mandating even diesels reduce addmissions. Picture L.A. smog with steam instead of diesel today?? It will be up to the next EMD/diesel type advance in locomotives that may still yet keep railroads viable. I am quite sure debates such as this raged in railroad board rooms across America without the romantisim. Bottom line, Bottom dollar and diesels won.

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

TomDiehl sayeth:

"At first, I couldn't figure out why a Steam vs Diesel post would go 16 pages. This post is roll-on-the-floor-laughing hilarious.

"Blaming the railroad's downturn on the steam to diesel transition. So when does that Kalmbach book "Diesel Victory" come out?

"Michael, you should be writing comedy. Especially the way you're leading these people down the garden path.

"You're not getting a piece of the action for selling that book, are you Michael?"

At last. Somebody else who gets it.

Thanks, Tom.

Old Timer

Pettifogger

1: a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable: SHYSTER
2: one given to quibbling over trifles
Websters Collegate Dictionary - 11th Edition

I thinks definition number 2 applies in this case.

[daveklepper]

Different operating conditions on the WP vs the B&M. Ernie Bloss was careful not to overstress his diesel power. He matched the number of units to the job at hand, and there were simply no cases in my memory of freights running through Hoosac Tunnel or up to White River Junction with one of the four or three units just along for the ride because of a failure. What I have read about most western railroad operations, not just the Western Pacific, is quite different, where failures in service were far more common. Even on the UP. The well-run Santa Fe might be the exception in my memory. Similarly, I don't remember failures in service on the New York Central and I do remember failures in service on the PRR. (With the Baldwins, particularly!) I can only speak about the B&M, because I did have first-hand knowledge about the replacement program where FT's were traded for GP-9's. Incidently, again, all GP-7's and RS-3's equipped with train boilers were used in freight service as well as passenger service on the B&M, and crews often ran a passenger in one direction and returned on a freight. Or visa versa. Often with the same locomotive. This was true of trainmen as well as locomotive engineers and firemen. Was the B&M unusual in this respect?

How many years can a boiler on a steam locomotive be in service before being essentially rebuilt into a new boiler? Economically, isn't this equivalent to trading in on new power?

Regarding the Clinchfield's using a diesel control stand in its heritage train 4-6-0 to control a helper F-7 B-unit, there was a good TRAINS article about this several years ago, with somewhat of a reprise this past year, and maybe some other reader can grab the copies quicker than I can. I think the operation ceased before the Clinchfield was merged into the CSX system.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Milwaukee had converted any number of steam engines to oil, no doubt much easier to convert to electronic controls than coal-fired machines.

Why would oil-fired steamers be easier to retrofit with a Diesel Synchronous Controller (DSC?) than coal fired locomotives? Are you refering to stoker-fired engines or hand fired engines, or is there no difference when comteplating DSC for coal-fired vs oil-fired steamers?

Well, that's a good question. My perception is that stoker-fired coal engines would be slower reacting than pressure-fired oil engines, but I've never seen them work. Don't know.

Best regards, Michael Sol

The answer to this question is that both the stoker on a coal fired loco and the oil jets on an oil fired loco are manually controlled by the fireman. They have to constantly vary the settings of the feed due to the varying need for steam, depending on how hard the loco is working. Maybe with today's technology, they could be remote controlled, as required by the MU system. The injector would also have to be automated to maintain water level in the boiler.

And to answer another question I saw earlier about MU'ing steam and diesel: they were run together in the transition period, but not in what we would call MU mode. The locos were run by their own engineer and required the skill and handling of an experienced engineer to coordinate the movement, more properly called helper service than MU.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper
How many years can a boiler on a steam locomotive be in service before being essentially rebuilt into a new boiler? Economically, isn't this equivalent to trading in on new power?

The boiler regs that were in effect from the 1930's until right after the Gettysburg incident required that the boiler be torn down every five years, the barrel and sheets inspected for flaws or thin spots, all flues replaced, and the locomotive hydrostatically tested. Probably the equivalent of the FRA inspection of a modern diesel, although I'm not familiar with the details of that inspection.

The flues were a normal wear item on the boiler. The barrel probably lasted the life of the locomotive, about 50 years on the 20th century built ones. The next most common to replace item was the crown sheet (roof of the firebox).

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol[/i]
Notwithstanding romantic visions of crew savings by early dieselization advocates, perpetuated today by railfans, where are the economic results that support these contentions?

Best regards, Michael Sol

There is nothing romantic abuot the dramatic fact that only tourist lines still opperate steam today. The economic results are now writen in the history books and the facts can not be changed. It was no one single advantage but there overall cost reduction. While this no reflection on you Michael we are drowning in both acid rain and possible glodal warming. There are no clean burning coal power plants or would there be steam engines. At this point in time they are mandating even diesels reduce addmissions. Picture L.A. smog with steam instead of diesel today?? It will be up to the next EMD/diesel type advance in locomotives that may still yet keep railroads viable. I am quite sure debates such as this raged in railroad board rooms across America without the romantisim. Bottom line, Bottom dollar and diesels won.

There is this interesting premise that business organizations do the right things, all the time on big decisions. Statistically, half of all business decisions have negative results. That's why so much energy is spent these days examining why and how decisions go haywire.

For Dieselization, to support the premise that it was the right decision because so many boards of directors made the same decision, is purely teleological: that because it happened, it must have been right.

People manage to argue with a straight face that this decision, in particular, was a good one because everyone made the same decision. The same "everyone" that hasn't been able to earn their cost of capital in 80 years, even though they continually make these great decisions.

From a broader perspective, it just doesn't work that way. The Telecom industry, a far larger industry with arguably better executive talent, offers a remarkable rejection of the idea that many boards of directors inherently make correct decisions. More stockholders suffered greater losses, 1996-2003, in Telecoms than in any industry in history, barring of course the Dot-coms, likewise involving huge market capitalizations, many boards of directors, and executive talent all over the place. It is far more plausible that otherwise intelligent, experienced people invested because the "herd" was moving, than that people made fully independent judgments that would have saved themselves, and the national economy, billions of dollars.

As usual, analysis has to proceed on the basis of actual facts, not what we wi***he facts were because of the interesting theory that boards of directors inherently study these things and make correct decisions because that premise is simply not viable. There are too many concrete examples of the contrary.

I mentioned earlier that this is an industry that makes decisions more by default than by careful analysis, and there is nothing in the dieselization process that shows otherwise: to the contrary.

We mentioned earlier that Dieselization tracked the adoption of the 100-ton car. ""At the time of the 100-ton car's introduction a number of research and track engineers warned that it would be highly detrimental to the track structure.....Without fully analyzing the economic implications of the 100-ton car, the industry essentially adopted it by default."

That accurately describes the Dieselization process in the same industry where similar long-term operating and investment decisions were simply not made, but rather were avoided upon the premise that short term savings were the same thing as a long term strategy.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[daveklepper]

I know from first-hand experience with the facts of the case that the B&M management made the right decision. And I trust the Norfolk and Western Management because of the other excellent decisions they made in keeping their railroad safe, profitable, and full of customer satisfaction. It is the N& case that is the proof for me about the other railroads. Of the majors, they kept steam the longest, had the very best steam engineering, operaiton, and maintenance, and yet they switched to diesel over a nine-year period.

I do feel that the McGinnes inspired conversion of the New Haven from a change at New Haven electrication to the FL-9 concept was not a good decision. It might have been a good one if the Copnnecticut Turnpike had not been built at the same time with consequent erosion of passenger traffic (which has made a comeback). However, it did result in an interesting, long-living, and useful locomotive. But just think, the caternary between New Haven Passenger Station and the State Street Junction near Ceder Hill Yard was installed when the electrication was extended from Stamford to New Haven, then torn down when freight service was dieselized under Alpert, then restored after the Virginian electrics were purchased, then torn down when Conrail dieslized all freight service, and then put back as part of the Amtrak Boston electriciation. Same routes caternary installed three times! Must be a world's record.

[martin.knoepfel]

In another thread on steam engines - I could not find it, sorry - somebody mentioned that the PRR IIRC had solved the problem of m.u.ing steam engines in the thirties. It was not applied because the railroad was afraid of active resistance by train crews and because it would have meant there are unguarded boilers. Liability problem?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I know from first-hand experience with the facts of the case that the B&M management made the right decision. And I trust the Norfolk and Western Management because of the other excellent decisions they made in keeping their railroad safe, profitable, and full of customer satisfaction. It is the N& case that is the proof for me about the other railroads. Of the majors, they kept steam the longest, had the very best steam engineering, operaiton, and maintenance, and yet they switched to diesel over a nine-year period.[

If, by this, you mean that neither railroad was harmed financially by their efforts, which I haven't seen, you will note that Milwaukee Road's ROI was not damaged during this period of dieselization ( by cutting some other things to offset the Dieselization losses, it appears), and during that time, its Operating Ratio improved. Can we say, based on the actual knowledge that we now have about Milwaukee's experience with Dieselization that it was the right decision at Milwaukee, just because its overall experience was something more positive than most railroads?

And if so, what does this say about the bulk of American railroads which suffered declining ROIs and deteriorating Operating Ratios during the period of Dieselization? Was that typical of B&M and N&W?

Or were the actual financial results of most American railroads different?

I do not understand these generous general conclusions, based on zero actual data. Particularly notwithstanding the actual fact that railroads, as an industry, went into a thoroughly documented economic decline during and after Dieselization from which many permit themselves to conclude is absolutely positive proof that Dieselization was a success!

Best regards, Michael Sol

[espeefoamer]

Just look at how often steam engines had to stop for water.Also the extra facilities needed at each terminal.Facilities were needed at more locations,and steam engines had to be changed out more often. And many helper districts could be abandoned with diesels.All of these facilities required many more men to operate.On an economic basis alone,dieselization seems like a no brainer.Even if a steam loco could be built to match a diesel's performance,(and the N&W came very close doing this) the steam engine still needed far more maintinance.