QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 If you have Trains magazines from before 1960, read DPM's News and Editorial Comments. Several of these mention the increasing burden on the railroad's ROI because of exploding passenger service deficits.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 You win. I'm done.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 If you have Trains magazines from before 1960, read DPM's News and Editorial Comments. Several of these mention the increasing burden on the railroad's ROI because of exploding passenger service deficits. Milwaukee Road, Passenger Service Operating Ratios: 1950 .. 145.1% 1960 .. 138.2% CNW 1950 146.0% 1960 134.7% GN 1954 179.8% 1960 175.8% UP 1956 163.5% 1960 147.5% With all due respect to both you and David P. Morgan with regard to the term "exploding," what was he talking about? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by APG45 QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by The Duke Maybe you said it I can't find it, but why were the interest charges higher on the diesels than new steam. Understandably they could have bought them slower, but in the end the cost would be the same, would it not? The idea that it's "all the same" is not accurate. There are two fundamentally different methods of financing involved here................................... That's great but how about answering his question??? I've noticed you conveniently ignore relevent questions or go off on tangents hoping to confuse readers. Fortunately most of us are too educated and intelligent to fall for it. Well, just because you didn't understand the answer, that's not a basis to assume I'm "hoping" anything. Steam $120,000. Equivalent diesel, $160,000, financed. Steam paid out of internally generated funds. It costs $120,000. Diesel, financed at 5%, costs $207,207 dollars, at 10% $260,392.63. Ultimately, that is three times the cost of the steam, because the funds are borrowed, not internal. Answered? I appreciate that you feel both educated and intelligent and look forward to that approach to the conversation. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by APG45 QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by The Duke Maybe you said it I can't find it, but why were the interest charges higher on the diesels than new steam. Understandably they could have bought them slower, but in the end the cost would be the same, would it not? The idea that it's "all the same" is not accurate. There are two fundamentally different methods of financing involved here................................... That's great but how about answering his question??? I've noticed you conveniently ignore relevent questions or go off on tangents hoping to confuse readers. Fortunately most of us are too educated and intelligent to fall for it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by The Duke Maybe you said it I can't find it, but why were the interest charges higher on the diesels than new steam. Understandably they could have bought them slower, but in the end the cost would be the same, would it not? The idea that it's "all the same" is not accurate. There are two fundamentally different methods of financing involved here...................................
QUOTE: Originally posted by The Duke Maybe you said it I can't find it, but why were the interest charges higher on the diesels than new steam. Understandably they could have bought them slower, but in the end the cost would be the same, would it not?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Eighteen pages and counting . . . MichaelSol, TomDiehl is right; you've hijacked this thread and have posted at least fourteen pages worth of your endless discourses trying to impress the unwary. APG is right, too. You do conveniently ignore relevant questions and go off on tangents hoping to confuse readers. If we all get together and tell you how impressed we are with you, will you let this thing go? Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer MichaelSol and futuremodal: You guys get funnier and funnier the farther you go. I don't have to present any data because I'm not the guy who's trying to change the way we look at railroading's past. You are, and neither of you have presented anything but several thousand words and a bunch of statistics based on specious assumptions by parties whose motives for coming up with them are not clear; they weren't paid by the RRs, nor the AAR, nor any government agency, nor any consulting firm of any repute. Sorry - I gotta go. I'm late for my date with Hillary. Please don't tell Bill . . . Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol To Anthony's comments. I've gone back and revised some of the numbers to show correlations with gross ton miles, removing the Electrification numbers entirely from the mix. Except for percentages, all numbers are stated in 1944 dollars. Further, train crew and train "enginemen" expenses were looked at. No yard crew or expenses are included in these figures. Cost per 1000 gross ton miles, locomotive fleet maintenance, plus fuel, plus financing charges. 1945: $1.24/1000 gross ton miles. 1960: $1.54/1000 gross ton miles. This is a 25% increase in costs during a time when revenue declined by 17.5% and all other operating expenses declined by 23%. Interestingly road crew costs increased as a result of Dieselization. Comments on this thread would have led one to believe otherwise. The 1945 cost associated with road service train crews was 89 cents per 1000 gross ton-miles, and after Dieselization was completed had increased to 96 cents per 1000 gross ton-miles, a 12% increase in road crew costs. During this period of time, wages associated with maintenance of way decreased by 41% and wages associated with station agents declined 43%. Overall, fuel, maintenance, financing, and road crew costs, which represented 18.5% of revenue in 1945 consumed 23.3% of revenue in 1960. Overall, these expenses increased by 21% from $2.13 in 1945 per 1000 gross tons to $2.59 per 1000 gross tons in 1960. For this specific railroad, fuel costs and maintenance costs declined, but these savings were overwhelmed by financing costs and crew cost increases. Not exactly the conventional wisdom, and the analysis is far from complete, but I think these numbers leave no doubt that the idea that Dieselization was an economic benefit to this particular company are just simply false. There is no basis in the statistical record for that conclusion. Since this supports H. F. Brown's findings with regard to the Santa Fe, the Pennsylvania and other U..S. railroads he looked at, Milwaukee Road at least is further evidence supporting his findings, that Dieselization "represented a net economic burden on American railways." With that, I've analyzed these numbers just about every which way and they keep leading to the same result. There is no doubt to me that anything which increases operating costs is going to decrease ROI, particularly when the substantial investment made generates a net negative internal rate of return. While the admiration for Dieselization takes on virtually religious overtones -- in which no factual demonstration to the contrary will shake an article purely of faith -- railroads are business enterprises. There is no place for pervasive mythologies perpetuated by self-annointed knowledgeable insiders. As I noted to one of teenagers early in this thread: "go to the source." Best regards, Michael Sol
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tharmeni Hey, Tom Diehl: Thanks for the info on the ACE 3000. I was actually in several of the meetings the BN had with the ACE folks and there WAS interest by BN in the idea, but it soon faded.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd If a RR buys 100 locomotives to handle their traffic and the locomotives perform exactly as advertised, but 90% of the traffic goes away, the nomalized measures will show that the locomotive's performance deteriorated, when, in fact, nothing of the sort happened. I think you missed your own very good point. If 90% of the traffic goes away, so do the fuel costs and maintenance costs as well. Employees can be furloughed. With Dieselization, one big cost thereafter remained that railroads could no longer control: the interest charges on the investment. It may be that 90% of the traffic goes away, but 40% of the cost remains even when the shiny diesel-electric locomotives are just sitting there. Except that it becomes 80% or 90% of your cost and there's nothing you can do about it. However, this does fit with your comment that railroad management at this point viewed railroading as a short term enterprise. Bankers, who benefitted the most from Dieselization, sat on most railroad boards at this point. Walter Cummings, the chairman of Continental Illinois Bank, sat on the Milwaukee Road Board of Directors 1945-1966 ... it's most senior and influential board member during that era. When he retired, he was replaced by his son Tilden "Tillie" Cummings, by then, Chairman of Continental Illinois Bank. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd If a RR buys 100 locomotives to handle their traffic and the locomotives perform exactly as advertised, but 90% of the traffic goes away, the nomalized measures will show that the locomotive's performance deteriorated, when, in fact, nothing of the sort happened.
QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV Michael's analysis indicates that there was no economic benefit to the railroad anywhere. (I'm a little confused as to whether the Diesel saved the Milwaukee Road anything in fuel and maintenance.) No credits, just debits.
QUOTE: For this specific railroad, fuel costs and maintenance costs declined, but these savings were overwhelmed by financing costs and crew cost increases.
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.
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
Have fun with your trains
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?
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith 20 pages? what the point of this topic again? I lost it somewhere back around page 12
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.
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.