Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[MichaelSol]

H.G. McClean, Manager of Export Sales, GM/EMD:

"But perhaps the best refutation of [Brown's] statements came from the action of the Norfolk and Western Railroad. That was a large eastern railroad, having engaged in hauling coal and with, therefore, every incentive to use motive power energized by coal, whether steam locomotives or electrification. Some 100 miles of that railroad had been electrified through a mountainous area and handling heavy traffic in 1914. The railroad abandoned that electrification in 1951.

"Thereafter it had operated a fleet of modern steam locomotives in a way which was well known and admired throughout the world as a classically fine steam locomotive operation. In 1955 the Norfolk and Western had made the decision to buy their first diesel locomotive, and in 1958 had decided on complete dieselization. At the time of that decision they had a background of previous experience of electrification. They had excellent comparative operating costs for steam locomotives, possibly the best figures in the United States, and equally, as late starters, they had available to them from all the other railroads that had been dieselized, data on the results of dieselization on those lines to supplement their own diesel experience. The President of that railway, speaking at Roanoke 9th February, 1960 said, 'Our dieselization programme was a major factor in enabling us to improve our operating performance so substantially in 1959.' No more outstanding example is available to disprove the author's statement 'Diesel motive power has added to the financial burden of the railways.'"

H.F. Brown, Consulting Engineer, Gibbs & Hill:

"Mr. McClean has cited the 'action of the Norfolk and Western Railway as the best refutation of [Brown's] statements.' That was quite agreeable to [Brown], who had been a small shareholder in that well-managed railway for many years, and was quite familiar with its operations. It was one of the few financially sound railways in the United States because its principal traffic, coal, could not be diverted to automotive vehicles on highways. The experience of that railway with its motive power, steam, electric and diesel, was an excellent epitome of the whole subject under discussion.

"For years that railway had built its own steam motive power which was outstanding in its performance. But there was a short, difficult section of single-track line, having a 2.2 per cent grade against their prevailing heavy traffic in the mountains. That was further complicated by a long tunnel, creating a serious 'bottleneck' on their otherwise two-track line. Electric operation of that section was installed in 1914 for helper service of the through traffic. Also for complete electric operation of the heavy coal trains from the various gathering yards over the summit of the grade to the main departure yard. From thence heavy steam power could take the trains downgrade to the seaport terminal. That electrification was paid for out of earnings; created no additional debt; satisfactorily solved the operating problems; and was just another part of smooth, economic railway operation.

"Like all railway electrification installed in the United States in those early days, it had been necessary to install its own power plant for its operation. Railway loads were far too heavy to be assumed by the small isolated industrial and lighting plants then existing. By 1950, after 35 years of exceptionally severe operation, including the 1941-1945 war requirements, the power plant and the electric motive power had reached the end of their economic service life. Both required replacement.

"The diesel manufacturers were immediately on their doorstep, dramatic sales-tools in hand, to convert them to the 'modern way' of operating their railway. Their motive power officials, being excellent steam locomotive manufacturers as well as operators and maintainers, had been quietly collecting the facts concerning diesel operation from their associates on th connecting lines -- of which there were many. They compared the 'dramatized version' of the facts collected and saw further that their own steam costs were below either version of the steam costs.

"That railway being principally engaged in coal haulage, and having excellent steam locomotives, had elected to retain their steam operation. They spent a considerable sum out of earnings to construct an entirely new double-track line over a new route through the mountains.That had much more favourable grades and a larger, shorter, double-track tunnel, all of which replaced the former single-track section that had required the electric operation. They had then returned to complete through operation with steam at speeds that were higher than the fixed-speed induction-motor type of electric locomotives had been capable of performing. All that was accomplished with no increase in debt and at about the same cost as new electric motive power and power supply.

"In 1955 there was a sharp increase in the coal export business to Europe. Additional motive power was required -- and soon. Their steam motive power had increased in age and was becoming more expensive to maintain. More especially since all other steam locomotive manufacturing had ceased, even for the various small replacement details, formerly easily obtained from suppliers, were no longer available. The Norfolk and Western had no decision to make by comparing motive power costs. They had no choice. They could no longer build, maintain, or purchase steam. They had no time to study and develop the new commercial frequency electrification for 60-cycle operation which would be required. They purchased diesels from the two manufacturing companies and it cost them approximately $86,000,000. That was more than they wished to divert from the unappropriated earned surplus. So, like all other railways, these were purchased by means of equipment trust certificates.

"[Brown] had a copy of the speech made by the President of that railway, referred to by Mr. McClean, relative to dieselization. Of course, he had to explain the expenditure of the large sum in the best light to the shareholders. He could not be criticized by anyone for what he had to do, nor were his statements incorrect. New diesels had saved materially in maintenance costs, compared with much older steam power now retired. Also, diesel oil was much cheaper at the present time than the very high grade, high BTU content Pocahontas coal, formerly used. [At that point] the N&W was enjoying the palmy days of initial diesel operation, as other railways were doing in 1950-1953.

"But all costs do not appear in operating costs or operating ratios. And that was the part censored in all the 'dramatized versions'. The N&W, which for years had been free from debt except for a very small mortgage bond issue, largely covered by sinking fund accumulation, was now for the first time in its history, burdened with a large debt represented by equipment obligations. It was paying off that debt at the rate of $5,662,000 per year on the principal, plus annual interest charges of $1,700,000, a total of $7,362,000.

"The main point to note was that by the time that debt was paid, the equipment would be worn out and that a larger debt would have to be renewed for replacement motive power. There was no denying that the financial burden on the railway had been increased by more than $7,000,000 annually, because of the necessity of adopting diesel motive power. That financial burden must be carried until a type of motive power having a much longer life took its place. The fact that that particular railway could, at the present time, assume that debt without too much drain on earnings had no bearing on the thesis."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[NW_611]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol, quoting H.G. McClean
The President of that railway, speaking at Roanoke 9th February, 1960 said, 'Our dieselization programme was a major factor in enabling us to improve our operating performance so substantially in 1959.'

Harrumph. Anything from the lips of Stuart T. Saunders should be considered with more than just a grain of salt. I'd suggest a salt lick purchased at your nearest Central Tractor. I wouldn't exactly suggest that he had the greatest pedigree for being an authoritative source on railroad operations.

As for the veracity of EMD, allow me to recount an interesting anecdote from COL L.I. Jeffries, USA (ret.):

"[The EMD A-B-B-A demonstrator] was rated at 6,000 horsepower but actually each unit was modified to boost its rating to 6,800 horsepower for [the 1952 N&W diesel tests]. EMD confessed when questioned by N&W officials since the dynamometer results exceeded published ratings."

For my part, I've wondered for a couple of years now whether the last big round of "Super-power" steam sales helped hasten the demise of the great road locomotives. IIRC, the Trains/Classic Trains article on this a while back seemed to suggest that very few roads bought the "right" last round of steam locomotives. I suppose costs would indeed go up and productivity would go down if you were trying to drive nails with a screwdriver, regardless of whether the screwdriver was titanium and engineered to the latest standards.

[daveklepper]

The N&W continued building steam locomotives up to about 1953, I believe. Correct me if I am wrong. All its facilities were in place to continue building them. Its steam fleet was not worn out, was well maintained, and some excellent second-hand modern steam locomotives were available from railroads like the P&LE and Nickel Plate and the two Canadian railroads which could have tied them over until their own manufacturing caught up. They did have a choice, and I vote for the EMD statement as being accurate in this case.

There was nothing wrong about EMD boosting the power of its units for the N&W test because they wished to demonstrate what kind of power would be available once the order was actually placed. EMD and GE and Alco all had a history of gradual upping horsepower ratings.

[Anonymous]

It is interesting to note that N&W paid ca***o dieselize its railroad, both for the power and the facilities to maintain it. It did not incur equipment trust or debt obligations to do so, as was implied. It waited until the costs per gross ton mile for the diesels was less than for its steam, and then it dieselized quickly.

The first equipment trusts applied to N&W diesels were applied to eleven EMD GP30s. The trust had originally covered Virginian's class EL-3 rectifier electrics. Per an agreement with the leinholder, the trust were transferred so the electrics could be sold to the New Haven. As long as the trust was in force, the electrics had to remain on N&W property. (The twelfth rectifier was converted to a slug unit.)

To meet its own requirements, N&W continued to pay cash for later model diesels.

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

daveklepper asserteth:

"There was nothing wrong about EMD boosting the power of its units for the N&W test because they wished to demonstrate what kind of power would be available once the order was actually placed. EMD and GE and Alco all had a history of gradual upping horsepower ratings."

Yes, there was something wrong with it, because they didn't tell the N&W that they were going to do it. If they had told the railroad beforehand, it might have been OK. They were found out when the dynamometer car readings showed power outputs more than EMD's own data called for. Only when faced with this did the EMD representatives admit what was going on. The fuel racks and load regulators of the four F7 units had been "adjusted" to give about 1700 HP instead of 1500.

Old Timer

[NW_611]

I would say that there was something wrong with EMD not disclosing that it had a unit with 13% more horsepower than it said. Why's that? Because it automatically ruins the test data, that's why. N&W management would have been thinking, "Wow, we can haul x tons with 6000 horsepower, when in reality, the ratio ought to be lower. The N&W was looking at the F7A/F7B and what could be done with it in the then and now, not what might come along in the F9A or other follow-ons.

Look at it this way: It's like the two of us agreeing that we will have a test with pairs of SD40s @ 3000 HP, and I show up with a cleverly-hooded SD45 @ 3600 HP. Assuming minimal competence on the part of the SD45's engineer, he'll probably outperform even the most capable engineer in your SD40. Purchasing the F7 under these circumstances would have been buying a lie.

My guess as to EMD's later reaction had they not been caught and the N&W found out that their 6000 HP units just don't do what EMD could: "Well fellas, maybe you're not taking care of 'em right, and perhaps you'd like a maintenance contract with us, or perhaps take a look at what we're developing, with you guys in mind. We call it the F9, and they're available on very good terms from GMAC..."

I'm still sort of surprised that gimlet-eyed railroad management bought their next-generation motive power from a company that probably was an early adopter of the concept of "planned obsolescence". I mean, c'mon; would you buy a used car from *** Nixon Dilworth?

[daveklepper]

They bought GP-9's with 1750 HP. They did not buy GP-7's or F-7's with 1500 HP.

Knowing Bert Heffner and Bob Konsbrook, both of whom were probably involved in the tests, along with the German ex Rocket Scientist Rudy something or other (forget his name) I suspect N&W's management DID know of the boosted horsepower because that was what EMD was trying to sell. (The GP-9 was under development in 1952.) I suspect it was just people in the field that were left out in the cold. The technical people at EMD were always straight in my experience.


HOWEVER: The New Haven was definitely sold a bill of goods on replacement of electric by diesel, and that was proved by their buying the Virginian electrics to reelectrify the freight service even when in bankrupcy. This was not the technical people's fault, rather that of both EMD upper management and the NYNH&H management which trusted EMD's evaluation of electrification economics (not diesel economics which would be OK in my book) versus that of Gibbs and Hill (who were of course the most important electrification experts.) When confronted with this comarison, NYNH&H management simply asked Gibbs and Hill: If we make the economical repairs to Cobbs Cobb Power Plant, will you GUARANTEE it won't blow up? Gibbs and Hill were not prepared to make such a guarantee, nor should they have been expected to do so. That was not their job. They had no control of the people who were going to manage the Power Plant, that was the New Haven's job. In the end
the plant had to be maintained anyway, because once the two states started subsidizing commuter service, they wanted the electrification to continue. The improvements were made, the plant did not blow up, and eventually GG1's started running through to New Haven on the old electrification with the FL-9 mostly transferred to ex-New York Central Brewster and Poughkeepsie to Grand Central service.
When it came to analyzing diesel performance, EMD was generally honest and above board. And most of the railroads that dieselized, including the N&W and Southern and B&M, did their own calculations based on their own informed experience for steam retention costs and did not even bother EMD with this question.

The New Haven's management was like a buyer who goes into a Chevy salesroom and asks for a fair comparison between Chevy economics and Ford economics.

There may have been other railroads who did likewise. The Milwaukee perhaps?

[MichaelSol]

From H.F. Brown:

"Repairs
Road locomotives

"The rise in repair costs with age for steam locomotives has been recognized for many years. In Fig. 20 is shown the result of a study of steam locomotive repair costs which appeared in a statement of the Federal Co-ordinator of Transportation in 1934. This graph is based on a cost survey covering about 66 per cent of all the steam locomotives of all sizes and types in use on the class I railways during 1927-1929.

"The rise in repair costs with age for diesel locomotives is often debated and denied on the basis that after 'heavy repairs' the running repair costs drop to former low levels. When the costs of these 'heavy repairs' are spread pro rata over the intervening period between such heavy overhauls, the total costs of repairs will be found to rise continuously with age.

"The diesel graphs are from studies made in 1955 of repair costs related to age of more than 3000 diesel units of all ages up to 12 yeas (on seven class 1 railways). All costs are shown at 1953 levels.

"The graph marked A is based on calculated diesel repair costs for an economic life of 15 years. Point P is the calculated repair cost in cents per 1000 rail-h.p.-mile incurred by all the road diesel power on the Class I railways in 1957, adjusted to the 1953 price levels. The average age of this diesel power was 6.6 years in 1957. The point P falls almost exactly at the graph A at 17.8 cents.

"Steam repair costs at age 6.6 years are 78 per cent of diesel repair costs shown in graph A. Road diesel repair costs in 1957 were $377.4 million. Equivalent steam power of the same age, to perform the same number of horsepower-miles, would cost $377.4 x 0.78 or $293 million."

Notes: Graph A shows that, with age, the differential becomes larger. At age 10 years, steam maintenance costs were only 68 per cent of diesel repair costs, and at age 15 years, steam was 56% of the cost of repair of equivalent diesel power.

"Yard locomotive repair costs

"It can be shown that the graph of repair costs in Figure 13b also follows a composite "number-age" curve made from data in Figure 6. In 1957, diesels in yard service had an average age of 9 years. The ratio of steam to diesel costs in Figure 21 in the 9th year is 0.695. Yard diesel repair costs in 1957 were $76 million. Steam locomotives of the same number and age would cost $76 x 0.695 or $52.8 million."

pp. 270-271.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

"Fuel costs

"Diesels in road service have an average thermal efficiency of about 26 per cent, compared with 6 per cent for steam. Although diesel oil is a higher cost fuel, the higher thermal efficiency of the diesel engine makes it lower in cost than coal for the same work performed. The cost of diesel fuel used in road service, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies has averaged 79.2 per cent of coal costs on a B.t.u. basis during the past ten years.

"The cost of fuel for all road locomotives was $366.7 million in 1957, exclusive of $23.2 million for electric power. Diesels were 88 per cent of total road power, using this proportion of the fuel cost, which is $323 million. This is 79.2 per cent of the cost of coal for equivalent service, which would have been $408 million, making the total fuel bill $451.7 million for equivalent steam operation.

"In yard service, with lower load factors and higher stand-by losses, the ratio of efficiencies is approximately 15 per cent for diesel and 1.5 per cent for steam, or ten to one. Diesel fuel costs, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies in yard service, have averaged 34.3 per cent of the cost of equivalent coal on a B.t.u. basis during the past 10 years.

"Diesel fuel cost $40.5 million for yard operation in 1957. This is 34.3 per cent of the cost of $118 million for coal for the same service with steam locomotives. Diesel operation was 95 per cent of the total yard operation. The total fuel and power bill was $43.3 million in 1957. With equivalent steam operation, this would have been $121.4 million."

p. 271.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

"Engine men

"In Fig. 8, locomotive-miles per train-mile shows a reduction from 1.07 in 1940 to 1.02 in 1957. This five per cent reduction is probably in "double heading" and "helper service", and can be credited to diesel operation. This can also mean a 5 per cent reduction in engine men.

"Engine men in road service cost $388.3 million in 1957. On the above basis, they would have cost 5 per cent more with steam operation, or $407.7 million. ...

"No savings in the cost of engne men ($242.7 million) is indicated in yard service. This is one example where savings which might be made with diesel or electric mtive power cannot be made because of working agreements."

In other words, the overall savings in engine labor costs was 2.9%.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

"Engine house expenses

"The graph for engine house expenses in Figure 12b reflects largely the reduction in locomotives, branch line terminals, and traffic and, to a lesser extent, the change in type of motive power. The rise between 1941 and 1954 reflects war traffic and operation of dual types of power.

"In the graph for this item in yard service ... the downward trend since 1950 must be assigned to the change in type of motive power. Costs in 1950 are the same as in 1941, at 0.0055 as a ratio cost. In 1957 this ratio cost was 0.0036, a reduction of 0.0019, which amounts to $15.6 million.

"The ratio of road diesel units to yard units in 1957 was 2-3 and the ratio of hypothetical steam road locomotives to road diesel units is 0.623. It may be assumed that the savings in engine house expenses in road service for diesels over steam would be $15.6 x 2.3 x 0.623 or $22.3 million.

Water

"There can be no question that the diesel is saving almost the entire cost of water. Assuming the cost of $5.3 million in 1957 was for the 1,942 steam locomotives still in road service, the cost of water for 11,800 steam, locomotives would be $5.3 times the ratio of 11,800 to 1,942 or $32.3 million.

"In yard service, there were 455 steam locomotives still in service in 1957 and the water cost was $1.1 million. Had all the 8227 yard diesels been replaced with steam, the water cost would have been $1.1 times the ratio of 8227 to 455, or $19.8 million."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

"Lubricants

"In the diesel locomotive, some of the lubricants are consumed with the fuel. The costs of lubricants are higher than for other types of motive power.

"Most lubricants are products of petroleum, which has increased in cost 2.4 times since 1940. Lubricants cost $7.5 million for 33,700 steam and electric road locomotives in 1940. The equivlent steam and electric locomotives in 1957 wuld be 14,300, or 42.5 per cent of the 1940 number. The costs of lubricants in 1957 on the basis of above assumptions would be $7.5 x 2.4 x 0.425 or $7.7 million, a very slight increase compared with the actual cost in 1957 of $27.2 million.

"Lubricants for yard service locomotives cost $1.3 million in 1940. Multiplied by the assumed rise in cost, this would be $3.1 million in 1957, compared with the actual cost of $4.4 million."

Summarizing, lubricants for equivalent steam power in 1957 would have cost $10.8 million, compared with lubricant costs for diesel operation of $31.6 million. This was a net cost of $20.8 million because of dieselization.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

"Horsepower and Tractive Effort

"The comparative horsepower and tractive force curves for a diesel and a steam locomotive having equal weight on drivers are shown in Fig. 18. In this case more horsepower can be built into the steam locomotive than into the diesel. The diesel still has a higher starting tractive force up to about 6 mile/h, but above 20 mile/h the steam locomotive has double the tractive force of the diesel.
...
"The superior performance of the diesel at slow speeds is one reaosn why it was adopted so rapidly in switching and yard service, where speeds average but 6 mile/h. The diesel became popular also on the railways having heavy mountain grades, because by slowing down, the diesel can increase its tractive force to a greater extent than can a steam locomotive.

"Starting tractive force, however important, is but a short part of the time of the total road performance. Horsepower is required for speed, and single diesel units cannot produce the horsepower that modern steam or electric units can supply in single units.

"The tractive force rating usually given for any locomotive is that for starting. That can be quite misleading in the comparison of types, for it overates the ability of the single diesel unit. The important tractive force required in road service is that for accelerating and moving the train load at the schedule speed. This requirement is independent of motive power. Any locomotive can usually keep moving any train it can start. The criterion is "Can it bring that train up to the desired speed, and in the desired time?"

"The I.C.C. statistics for 1957 show that it required 2.08 diesel units per average passenger train, and 2.59 diesel units per average freight train. The average for all trains in road service was 2.41 units. The tractive force of any of these combination at the running speed is well within the capacity of [a single unit] of most of the modern steam power remaining in either passenger or freight service in 1957.

"This leads to the interesting conclusion that it has required more motive power units of the diesel type to perform the present transportation service of the class I railways than would have been required had modern steam locomotives been purchased in their stead."

Notes: this explains the comments of experienced steam engineers that, on the road, a steam engine could outgun a diesel locomotive of equivalent horsepower rating. Figure 17 showed that at 40 mph, a diesel locomotive''s tractive force was about 16% of its starting tractive effort, whereas steam generated about 25% of its starting tractive force, but more importantly, whereas the diesel -- a constant horsepower machine -- reached its rated horsepower at 10 mph and could not exceed that, a steam engine's horsepower output continued to climb until 50 mph, and could produce 30% more horsepower than a diesel above 40 mph.

Something we don't think of today, but that a steam locomotive became more powerful, the faster it went.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

"Summary

"The summary of savings for all the items of locomotive operating expense is given in Table 4, .... this shows that the diesel locomotives, in toto, made operating savings of $137 million compared with the assumed equivalent steam operation, on the basis of 1957 costs. ...

"The total investment is $1.8 billion greater for the diesels, and the fixed charges are $165.5 million greater than for the equivalent steam locomotive investment, exceeding the operating savings by $28.5 million.

"In road service alone, the investment in diesels and pro-rated facilities is $665 million more than for the equivalent steam power. Diesel operation is $49.7 million cheaper than steam operation, but fixed charges amount to $71.6 million more than the operating savings.

"In yard service alone, the investment in diesels and pro-rated facilities is $665 million more than with equivalent steam power. Diesel operation is $87.3 million cheaper than with steam operation, and fixed charges only $44.2 million greater than for steam, making a net overall saving of $43.1 million. This is a 6.6 per cent return on the $665 million increase in investment.

"Quite obviously, the savings realized by diesel operation in yard service have not been realized in road operation. It is clear in the development of this analysis just why this has not been possible. Nothing can be found in this analysis to justify the claim so often made that the diesels are producing a 30 per cent return on their investment. If this were true, such large savings would become apparent in lower operating ratios and increased earnings."

p. 272.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[zardoz]

I think this thread is caught in some sort of temporal loop....it just keeps on going and going, not really going anywhere, and keeps returning to the beginning. Kinda like a Moebius strip.

[Anonymous]

Exactly!!!!! I wish it would end!!! It keeps bumbing all the good threads to the bottom of the page....

ITS THE BORG!!! Resistance is futile...you cannot fight it....it consuimes all in its path... (incuding perfectly good cyber space)

[B)]

[ValleyX]

Yes, and it's useless, it's a strictly "what if" thread and designed to show the extensive research and knowledge of one Michael Sol, who gives us his best regards. It's kind of like being a trivia expert, fun to know but what can you do with it? When the day comes the diesels get replaced, will these posts be researched in an effort to avoid making the mistakes of the past, as seen by some participants here?

[GP40-2]

It may be true that some railroads may have over extended themselves financially in buying too many new locomotives, too fast in a vain hope of finding the "silver bullet" to increased profitability.

However, it should be noted that that this entire thread seems to revolve around the performance of early, first generation D-E locomotives. Locomotives that were non-turbocharged, and had relatively inefficient DC-DC electrical systems. Locomotives that are today as obsolete as the steamers they replaced.

This is the 21st Century, and 22 pages have been spent on debating something that may of happened in the 1950's...

[Anonymous]

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?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

It may be true that some railroads may have over extended themselves ...

However, it should be noted that that this entire thread seems to revolve around the performance of early, first generation D-E locomotives. Locomotives that were non-turbocharged, and had relatively inefficient DC-DC electrical systems. Locomotives that are today as obsolete as the steamers they replaced.

This is the 21st Century, and 22 pages have been spent on debating something that may of happened in the 1950's...

Only 22 pages devoted to the most significant economic event in railroading ... OK, how many is enough compared, say, to "Depot Diner"?

The point however, is more significant taken with the fact that those early diesels were purchased at interest rates of 1 to 3%. Now, imagine the impact on railroads when those interest rates doubled, tripled, and quadrupled to 5 and 7% in the 1960s, and then 12%, 14% and 16% in the 1970s.

Any idea what happened to railroads during that time?

Or is it more interesting to start threads about "how many fans are there of MRL?" Boy, that's real railroading isn't it?

And recall that diesel fuel prices headed into the 1970s were two, four, then ten times the constant dollar cost of diesel fuel in the 1950s.

And during that same period, railroad ROI went from 4% to 2% to 1%. And, it is alleged, that had nothing to do with Dieselization even though the coincidence is, if nothing else, remarkable.

The significant change was not in savings, but in additional financing charges which clearly wrecked the venture from the standpoint of railroad profitability. How do increases since then in financing and fuel costs assist the newer generations to be more economically viable?

Did relatively small efficiency improvements in combustion technology and thyristor controls overcome a doubling and trebling of associated expenses?

How could they?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[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]

[Anonymous]

uh oh. I see TomDiehl is viewing this thread.... (cementmixr scurrying for cover...) [:D]

[TomDiehl]

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.

[TomDiehl]

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.

[MichaelSol]

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

[ValorStorm]

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!

[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...

[GP40-2]

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!

[Anonymous]

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

[edblysard]

Old Timer,
Michael is a lawyer in Montana....he isn’t supposed to say anything factual.[:D]

Ed