Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

RRs do produce revenue, but we're talking about locomotives. Locomotives, as a "black box" consume man-hours and fuel and produce drawbar pull and speed (work). They know nothing about the nature of what the drawbar is pulling.

If you're going to measure the effectiveness or efficiency of a locomotive, you have to measure the inputs and outputs of the black box. Revenue per ton is not something a locomotive can control.

Locomotives don't manage, people do.

Gross ton-miles as a unit measure, without more, doesn't tell a manager what is being measured.

Among other things, the "cost per gross ton-mile" measure is most affected by 1) line haul, and 2) distribution of business where fuel consumption per gross ton mile, for example, almost always looks better, even with the same locomotive fleet, and with 3) tare ratio improvements, in which cost per gross ton mile will show the same cost, but cost per net ton mile shows an improvement -- which you want to see. but wouldn't with the gtm measure because it is, all by itself, a poor productivity statistic.

The cost per gross ton-mile can look better and better all the time (and almost always does) and not have a thing to do with the performance of the locomotive. Indeed, the more traffic a railroad loses on shorter hauls, very frequently the better the cost per gross ton mile measure looks even as the railroad is going broke losing traffic.

The "appearance" of the locomotive performing better through the use of a gross ton-mile metric is exactly how a deteriorating situation can be masked by "improving" performance metrics.

That is why so many of the Dieseliztation studies performed by railroads after the fact to justify and rationalize their decisions were just garbage.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So, are we discussing the effectiveness of managment decisions about how to use locomotives or which kind of locomotives they should use?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
That is why so many of the Dieseliztation studies performed by railroads after the fact to justify and rationalize their decisions were just garbage.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Have you read them?

Let me know which one's you have read, and perhaps you can contribute to an informed discussion about them and based on the ones I have read, I'll let you know my specific opinions on each one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
That is why so many of the Dieseliztation studies performed by railroads after the fact to justify and rationalize their decisions were just garbage.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Have you read them?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

RRs do produce revenue, but we're talking about locomotives. Locomotives, as a "black box" consume man-hours and fuel and produce drawbar pull and speed (work). They know nothing about the nature of what the drawbar is pulling.

If you're going to measure the effectiveness or efficiency of a locomotive, you have to measure the inputs and outputs of the black box. Revenue per ton is not something a locomotive can control.

Locomotives don't manage, people do.

Gross ton-miles as a unit measure, without more, doesn't really tell a manager what is being measured. It doesn't even tell him or her what the locomotive is really doing.

Among other things, the "cost per gross ton-mile" measure is most affected by 1) line haul, and 2) distribution of business where fuel consumption per gross ton mile, for example, almost always looks better, even with the same locomotive fleet, and with 3) tare ratio improvements, in which cost per gross ton mile will show the same cost, but cost per net ton mile shows an improvement -- which you want to see. but wouldn't with the gtm measure because it is, all by itself, a poor productivity statistic.

The cost per gross ton-mile can look better and better all the time (and almost always does) and not have a thing to do with the performance of the locomotive. Indeed, the more traffic a railroad loses on shorter hauls, very frequently the better the cost per gross ton mile measure looks even as the railroad is going broke losing traffic.

The "appearance" of the locomotive performing better through the use of a gross ton-mile metric is exactly how a deteriorating situation can be masked by "improving" performance metrics.

That is why so many of the Dieselization studies performed by railroads after the fact to justify and rationalize their decisions were just garbage.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[oltmannd]

RRs do produce revenue, but we're talking about locomotives. Locomotives, as a "black box" consume man-hours and fuel and produce drawbar pull and speed (work). They know nothing about the nature of what the drawbar is pulling.

If you're going to measure the effectiveness or efficiency of a locomotive, you have to measure the inputs and outputs of the black box. Revenue per ton is not something a locomotive can control.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV
[I'm not sure where we're at with this, but the way I look at it is efficiency is cost/production. A steel mill or coal mine produces tons. I realize I have never been in railroading, but it seems to me that a railroad produces ton-miles. Therefore I would choose gross ton miles or revenue ton miles as my basic normalizing parameter depending on the context.

I think its a world view difference. I see railroads producing revenue, and ultimately net revenue, not gross ton miles as the final measure of their efficiency.

Cost per gross ton-mile is a poor economic indicator of effiiciency because, as shown, it relies on the proposition of increasing the overall economic cost of the production in order to increase the apparent efficiency of the measurement unit selected.

From a productivity standpoint, that choice of measurement will almost invariably lead to bankruptcy. Even as the effficiency measure gets better and better, the overall cost of the operation associated with the measurement goes up and up.

That is, it is no real measure of what you need to know.

It is an industry standard measurement, for sure, but one used most typically incorrectly.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[AnthonyV]

Michael:

I'm not sure where we're at with this, but the way I look at it is efficiency is cost/production. A steel mill or coal mine produces tons. I realize I have never been in railroading, but it seems to me that a railroad produces ton-miles. Therefore I would choose gross ton miles or revenue ton miles as my basic normalizing parameter depending on the context.

For the record, the series of questions I asked on Page 17 regarding ton miles and line haul were asked because I felt was that using revenue tons as a basis of comparison did not capture the average distance traveled, which probably increased because of the lost short haul traffic. Improvement in the Diesel case relative to steam by basing the calculation on ton miles was not a surprise to me.

Finally, I didn't presuppose anything regarding steam. I never attributed a root cause for the Diesel versus steam numbers to improve when expressed in ton miles. Before we can get to the cause, we first must understand what actually happened.

Thanks
Anthony V.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

This Brown is an outsider looking in. I am not particularly pursuaded by commentary from outsiders on the railroad industry. The woods are full of self-styled railroad experts. In my opinion, the place to start an analysis like this one is with primary source documents as found in a railroad company's archives. Surely every railroad made internal studies on the impact of dieselization. Where are the internal studies? I guess nobody here has read them.

Even if you completely ignore his background and/or qualifications, this does bring up another question: Why did Brown do this study? Was he hired by the railroads or organization like the AAR? Was he working for a Wall Street firm to give them a stock market rating for the railroads?

Michael

I posted this question a couple pages back but you may have missed this. Do you know the answer?

In 1957 British Rail wanted an independent assessment of Dieselization. They weren't very far along in the process themselves, but some American railroads, such as Milwaukee Road, had completed the process.

Then as now, among consulting firms there were the blue chips -- very expensive -- second tier firms that did OK work, and cheap and dirty firms. Gibbs & Hill was the pre-eminent transportation consulting firm, having built up their reputation particularly during thirty years of work for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Gibbs & Hill along with Coverdale & Colpitts were the old line firms for this kind of work.

George Gibbs had been one of Thomas Edison's assistants on railroad electrification projects, then in 1898 a Milwaukee Road mechanical engineer, and left at the behest of George Westinghouse to develop AC railroad electrification.

He rejoined Milwaukee Road in 1908 to become Milwaukee Road's very first electrical engineer for its PCE electrification project. Later he did pioneering work on Russian railways. Joe Michael Feist, "Railways and Politics: The Russian Diary of George Gibbs, 1917," Wisconsin Magazine of History, 62:3, Spring, 1979.

Ultimately he ended up doing a lot of Pennsylvania work, and while I don't know anything about Hill, the geneology of the firm goes back to those Edison days, experience at Milwaukee Road and at Westinghouse, and Russian railway work.

It needs to be noted since one commentator doesn't understand it. British Rail is a railroad. It was also a government agency. It was also deeply interested in an accurate assessment, and willing to spend important dollars to get that analysis. In turn, the reputation of an important consulting and engineering firm rested on the integrity of the final report, so much so that the final report was submitted for peer review and comment through the recognized professional society for railway transportation and mechanical engineers. The bona fides of this report stand head and shoulders above Dieselization "studies" done by American railroads, by AAR, or by GM/EMD.

By 1957, there were newer firms coming along, Wm Wyer was doing a lot of work by then but, from my personal perspective, it's work was never the quality of G&H or C&C. Since then, Booz Allen and Coopers & Lybrand did work, McKinzie, BCG, Dyer, Reebie, Williamson, Banks and others, but there was something about those old G&H and C&C studies that were well-informed, almost elegant, by comparison.

So, since the stakes were high, British Rail wanted the best study available: they chose Gibbs & Hill, specifically Harry Farnsworth Brown. Alfred Oehler at Railway Age and Jacob Stair Jr., a G&H engineer, also participated in the study.

As a result of the study Gibbs & Hill iincreased their international prestige. From its finding adverse to Dieselization and EMD marketing claims, foreign firms and governments saw a repudiation of the suspicion that American consulting firms placated vested large American industrial interests to serve their own vested consulting interests.

As a result, Gibbs & Hill became one of the largest international consulting and engineering firms in the world, and was involved in transportation projects and electrification projects everywhere. Some of the largest US electric power generating plants of the 1970s and 1980s were Gibbs & Hill projects.

Ultimately, Gibbs & Hill was purchased by Washington Group International, and in conjunction with its other heritage acquisitions, Raytheon and Morrison Knudsen, became the engineering heart of one of the largest construction and engineering firms in the world, although maintaining its separate offices on the 91st floor of the south World Trade Tower, New York City.

The Firm was wiped out September 11, 2001.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

This Brown is an outsider looking in. I am not particularly pursuaded by commentary from outsiders on the railroad industry. The woods are full of self-styled railroad experts. In my opinion, the place to start an analysis like this one is with primary source documents as found in a railroad company's archives. Surely every railroad made internal studies on the impact of dieselization. Where are the internal studies? I guess nobody here has read them.

Even if you completely ignore his background and/or qualifications, this does bring up another question: Why did Brown do this study? Was he hired by the railroads or organization like the AAR? Was he working for a Wall Street firm to give them a stock market rating for the railroads?

Michael

I posted this question a couple pages back but you may have missed this. Do you know the answer?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV
[2. Reduced track damage by eliminating the hammering associated with steam.

"Other Considerations

"Diesel locomotive design has proved, as electric locomotive design has proved in Europe, that high speeds can be safely made with locomotives having small-diameter driving wheels without the necessity of idle leading axles. Thus all of the locomotive weight may be used for adhesion.

"Small diameter driving wheels, and lower centre of gravity do produce greater track and rail stresses. Rail 'burns' from slipping driving wheels are more prevalent with diesel operation than with former steam. It is often claimed that the change from steam to diesel has reduced the cost of track maintenance. Maintenance of way costs have been carefully examined over the period studied to verify this claim. No indication can be found that the change in the type of motive power has produced any savings in this field. Such costs have increased slightly.."

H. F. Brown at p. 273-274.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV
On the contrary, it is very intuitive, which is why I asked the question. In any industry, efficiency measures are not a matter of choice. Otherwise a company could choose the measures that make them forever profitable.

Well, I got a couple of emails about it, one of them in capital letters "HOW CAN FUEL COSTS GO UP AND GO DOWN AT THE SAME TIME !!!!!"

Hence the post.

QUOTE: Do you think it is counterintuitive that the average line haul increased, since the railroad lost unprofitable short-haul traffic? Unless the railroad lost traffic in the same percentage across-the-board, revenue ton miles would have HAD to decrease less than revenue tons did.
Thus, costs per ton would have HAD to increase even if the actual efficiency remained constant. In this case, your results gave a false indication of lower efficiency when in fact, efficiency actually increased. Again, this is why I asked the question.

Nobody gave a "false" indication of anything. Plus, I'm the one that pointed it out. It does however pose a "false" efficiency answer. Hauling freight farther is not, emphatically not, an "efficiency" measure if other economic factors related to the haul go down. And this presupposes the inverse, that such efficiencies would not have occured with steam. The difference between correlation and cause are well known. In this instance, your position suggests that working more (longer haul) per revenue ton, is proof of increasing efficiency.

That's the "efficiency" conundrum here: it takes more input to move a ton of revenue freight farther (costs more overall), however the fuel use efficiency is greater per unit mile (costs less per unit mile).

Just about any machine is more efficient in its fuel or energy use, the longer it is operated at its most efficient level, and loses efficiency outside of its optimum range and particularly in transitions: in this case, accelerating and braking. In this case, the energy efficiency per mile increases as a result of a longer haul, but the total cost to carry a ton also increases. The phenomenon occurs with both which only proves that both Steam and the Diesel-electric locomotive obey the laws of thermodynamics, not that one is superior to the other.

Does it make more sense to spend more money to haul a revenue ton farther, in order to obtain the inevitable physics advantage of lower costs per mile? If the revenue is the same, no, but that underscores the difficulty of looking at various "per mile" measurements because ultimately it is a more complicated physics question -- you are going to use more energy -- but ultimately it is a rate or revenue question, not a physics question at all.

QUOTE: Regarding crew costs, I think the relevant measure for comparison is the number of man hours of road crew per ton mile, or something similar. Comparing crew costs in 1962 to those in the 1940's, even when inflation adjusted, makes implicit assumptions regarding the growth of real wages for the steam case. Comparing man-hours per ton mile would clarify how efficient the use of manpower was for steam versus Diesel. Once these results are known, we can then analyze how wages affects the overall costs.

No, all we would show is that relatively new motive power is almost always cheaper to operate, on all counts, than 27 year old, average, motive power. That approach creates a false dichotomy between the power types.

The line haul is a good example. I was actually surprised in this case that it didn't improve more, with Interstate highways and what not. Line hauls on American railroads began to improve about 1909, and is just about the straight line, the same slope, over a 40-50 year period.

Fuel costs per mile declined over the entire period. Indeed, Steam showed some outstanding "efficiency" improvements prior to 1950.

Wage costs per mile declined over the entire period with the exception of the period of Dieselization, 1945-1962.

Statistics and productivity studies are tricky. And as the old saying goes, can certainly be used to deceive both the user and the reader, entirely unintentionally, but underscoring, above all else, the need for 1) care and 2) context.

For some, discussions like this are enormously illuminating about the intricacies of what passes for analysis in the rail industry. For others, there is no more illumination here than there would be handing a calculus textbook to a cow. Fortunately, no one is forcing them to read, and there is not a test at the end.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Leon Silverman]

Regarding the the issue of the relative drag of roller bearings vs. journal bearings, the typical coefficient of friction differs by a full order of magnitude. A tapered roller bearing is going to have a coefficient of friction of 0.0018. So a journal bearing is lucky to have a coefficient of friction of only 0.018. This reduces the drag by 90 percent.

[oltmannd]

...and don't forget that RRs were losing economy of scale during the 50s - which would make unit costs look bad even with all other things held constant.

[AnthonyV]

Michael:

Upon reflection, locomotive and road crew efficiency would probably be better defined in terms of gross ton miles (as in your earlier post), not revenue ton miles. In any case, my point is that I don't believe tons is a relevant measure of production since it omits the effects of the distance shipped.

Thanks
Anthony V.

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

Let me throw out a real curve ball. Since maritime I.E. Navy has gone to steam in the form of nuclear and if they solve the fision/fusion problem we could very well see steam again. If its not coal/oil based maybe something else.. Cold fusion without the 3 mile island stigma may be the answer and solve both emision and import issues?? It just will not be in the form anyone remembers it. As long as we learn from our past the future remain limitless!!!! [?] As always ENJOY [2c]

I dont think we'll see Nuclear Powered steam locos because I dont think you could build a reactor small enough to fit the loading guage. What you could do is use nuclear generated electricity, either to power electric trains or make hydrogen from sea water.

It's possible some third world countries with cheap coal and labour may yet revert to steam. I believe in Zimbabwe they've gone back to steam because they can't afford the oil; they do however possess coal in abundance in that country.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by route_rock

Oh youth that doesnt listen to elders. two SD-70 macs to drag a coal train up albia hill at a crawl.a 2-10-4 dragging a 10,000 ton train up the same hil at about 30. I can hear you guys now ,thats 8,000 tons less,ahh touche but they had fricton bearing's. Not the nice roller bearings that todays power house junkers get to pull. Took 4 count em 4 to get the same train pulled by one steam loco.So before you all say steam was horrible l suggest you re read your history. Had WWII not forced railroads to run power that was beat up and out of repair the diesel might have had to wait till the 70's.
Funny we all talk about how great diesels are and versatile but can a 70 mac do locals? a Trash 9? I dont think so folks! Diesels were versatile one day long ago,not now.

Can your 2-10-4 do locals? Can it take the 200 foot radius curves found in old industrial and dock areas? An SD70MAC just might, albeit very slowly and with much flange squealing. No I wouldn't want to do it every day. But in a pinch an SD70MAC can do the local. Your 2-10-4 could not.

And yes it took four diesel units to handle that same 10,000 ton train. But if there was only 2000 tons a diesel only needed one unit. While with steam you were stuck with that same 2-10-4. Likewise if there were 15,000 tons to move a diesel could have 6 units. And you still had a 2-10-4. Or maybe you called out two crews and ran the train in sections.

It is fairly common in northern and western Ohio to see trains on the NS that approach 3 miles in length hauled by 2 SD70s or Dash9s. Trains that size were never routine during steam. Yes steam had to pull many cars with friction bearings (but there were some roller bearings too, WM had lots of them on coal hoppers) but steam never had to pull trains of cars that exceeded 300 feet in length and carried 10 containers, and do so at an average speed that is competative with the interstates.

[AnthonyV]

Michael:
Your last post read:
"This may have sounded counterintuitive. It was a statistical fluke in this case.

Revenue tons, 1945-1962, decreased by 24.5%. Line haul increased from 348 miles to 358 miles and so the ton miles decreased by only 22.1%.

Adjusted fuel and maintenance costs decreased by 22.8%. So, relative to revenue tons, these motive power costs appeared to increase per revenue ton. However, relative to ton miles, motive power costs appeared to decrease per ton mile.

Had these cost percentage declines been greater than 24.5%, or less than 22.1%, the comparison with either revenue tons or ton miles would have been identical that is, representing an increase in such costs over the study period or representing a decrease in such costs per unit measured over the study period.

A fluke, but accurate."

On the contrary, it is very intuitive, which is why I asked the question. In any industry, efficiency measures are not a matter of choice. Otherwise a company could choose the measures that make them forever profitable.

In this exercise, we are trying to determine costs per unit of production. The most relevant measure of production in shipping is the ton-mile, not tons. As an extreme example, wouldn't shipping one ton across town use less fuel per ton than shipping that same ton 500 miles?

Do you think it is counterintuitive that the average line haul increased, since the railroad lost unprofitable short-haul traffic? Unless the railroad lost traffic in the same percentage across-the-board, revenue ton miles would have HAD to decrease less than revenue tons did. Thus, costs per ton would have HAD to increase even if the actual efficiency remained constant. In this case, your results gave a false indication of lower efficiency when in fact, efficiency actually increased. Again, this is why I asked the question.

Regarding crew costs, I think the relevant measure for comparison is the number of man hours of road crew per ton mile, or something similar. Comparing crew costs in 1962 to those in the 1940's, even when inflation adjusted, makes implicit assumptions regarding the growth of real wages for the steam case. Comparing man-hours per ton mile would clarify how efficient the use of manpower was for steam versus Diesel. Once these results are known, we can then analyze how wages affects the overall costs.

Let me stress that I am questioning your methodology, not the results, which is why I raised the questions I did in previous posts. It is impossible for me to discuss results since I have no raw data to analyze to generate my own results that we can compare.

Thanks
Anthony V

[AnthonyV]

Cementmxr

Can you post your findings? It will be interesting to see this issue from the railroad's perspective.

Thanks
Anthony V

[rrandb]

Let me throw out a real curve ball. Since maritime I.E. Navy has gone to steam in the form of nuclear and if they solve the fision/fusion problem we could very well see steam again. If its not coal/oil based maybe something else.. Cold fusion without the 3 mile island stigma may be the answer and solve both emision and import issues?? It just will not be in the form anyone remembers it. As long as we learn from our past the future remain limitless!!!! [?] As always ENJOY [2c]

[Anonymous]

Haven't read all the pages.

I would think by now, any economic advantage steam might have would be negated by environmental and safety regulation. I'm somewhat surprised the museum steamers still operating haven't been mothballed by environmental dictates.

Long live the steamers that are still operable.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
That's a fair question. It depends on the unit of measure. By a revenue ton comparison, costs went up. By ton miles, they went down. Depends entirely on which measure you might think most important.

This may have sounded counterintuitive. It was a statistical fluke in this case.

Revenue tons, 1945-1962, decreased by 24.5%. Line haul increased from 348 miles to 358 miles and so the ton miles decreased by only 22.1%.

Adusted fuel and maintenance costs decreased by 22.8%. So, relative to revenue tons, these motive power costs appeared to increase per revenue ton. However, relative to ton miles, motive power costs appeared to decrease per ton mile.

Had these cost percentage declines been greater than 24.5%, or less than 22.1%, the comparison with either revenue tons or ton miles would have been identical that is, representing an increase in such costs over the study period or representing a decrease in such costs per unit measured over the study period.

A fluke, but accurate.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Sorry - I gotta go. I'm late for my date with Hillary. Please don't tell Bill . . .

Old Timer

Actually, you're probably doing Bill a favor........

[Anonymous]

Anthony,
I just found some data and analysis last night from the early 60's on the improvement in efficiency brought about by diesels. I think there is probably a wealth of data and analysis out there in various company archives on the subject.

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by route_rock

Oh youth that doesnt listen to elders. two SD-70 macs to drag a coal train up albia hill at a crawl.a 2-10-4 dragging a 10,000 ton train up the same hil at about 30. I can hear you guys now ,thats 8,000 tons less,ahh touche but they had fricton bearing's. Not the nice roller bearings that todays power house junkers get to pull. Took 4 count em 4 to get the same train pulled by one steam loco.So before you all say steam was horrible l suggest you re read your history. Had WWII not forced railroads to run power that was beat up and out of repair the diesel might have had to wait till the 70's.
Funny we all talk about how great diesels are and versatile but can a 70 mac do locals? a Trash 9? I dont think so folks! Diesels were versatile one day long ago,not now.

There are some fundemental differences in the way trains were operated .
In the old days it was not unheard of to exceed speed limits, you could get a good run at a hill whereas nowdays you cannot !!!
iT'S NOT JUST THE LOCOMOTIVES THAT CHANGED RAILROADING !!
Randy

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

20 pages? what the point of this topic again? I lost it somewhere back around page 12

Thank you for sharing your loss.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by techguy57

QUOTE: Originally posted by techguy57
Michael
Beside being a large capital investment, would restictions on locomotive emissions from federal and state agencies, like the EPA, make it difficult for steam to be profitable in current times?
Thanks,
Mike

I'm sorry if you answered this already but I couldn't find anything. Care to speculate?

The capital costs of conversion to steam would only duplicate the same problems encountered with Dieselization. As I mentioned early in this thread, making the same mistake twice doesn't fix the first mistake. Dieselization would have been a net benefit, but for the means of achieving it, which wrecked the whole endeavor. As to pollution, combustion by-products present difficult problems whether from internal or external combustion engines. Diesel engines have been much less susceptible to the proven solution of catalytic converter technology which worked well with gasoline engines and other point-source pollution problems. Whether that would be true for the different pollution by-products from external combustion steam, or some internal combustion use of coal is, to my mind, problematic. Coal is a dirty energy source. On the other hand, hydrocarbon combustion in general, including Diesel, produces all manner of stuff that shouldn't be going into the air. Perkins, Cat, International and others have been working feverishly the last 15 years anticipating higher emission standards for Diesel truck engines. They have devoted enormous resources to the problem with only marginal success. It has been a tough and expensive problem to overcome.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[art11758]

The original question was:
I wanted to get some expert opinions going on the advantages/disadvantages
of steam & diesels & see where the debate goes.
And here we are.

[vsmith]

20 pages? what the point of this topic again? I lost it somewhere back around page 12

[techguy57]

QUOTE: Originally posted by techguy57

Michael
Beside being a large capital investment, would restictions on locomotive emissions from federal and state agencies, like the EPA, make it difficult for steam to be profitable in current times?

Thanks,

Mike

I'm sorry if you answered this already but I couldn't find anything. Care to speculate?

Mike

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV

Michael:

I don't mean to nitpick, but on page 11 you stated the following:

"Maintenance costs of motive power per revenue ton were, if anything, overall slightly higher after dieselization than before. Where's the benefit?"

"Fuel costs are slightly higher after dieselization than in 1944 when Milwaukee operated 1094 steam engines and only 79 diesels. Where's the benefit?"

Could you clarify whether there were savings and why the conclusion has changed?

Thanks

Anthony V.

That's a fair question. In this instance, the units measured are different. Compared to net tons, the relative costs of motive power operations increased. Compared to ton miles, the relative costs of motive power decreased.

Best regards, Michael Sol