To Anthony's comments.
I've gone back and revised some of the numbers to show correlations with 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 ton miles, locomotive fleet maintenance, plus fuel, plus financing charges.
1945: $1.24/1000 ton miles.
1960: $1.54/1000 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 ton-miles, and after Dieselization was completed had increased to 96 cents per 1000 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 tons to $2.59 per 1000 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 is 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