Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[ValleyX]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ValorStorm

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!

It was, and I'm guessing, somewhere around the turn of the 20th century, that the practice of engineers being assigned to a specific engine was discontinued.

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

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

Ed

Oh my God, that statement is freaking priceless...[(-D]

[rrandb]

Now do you understand why Dylan Thomas said" Let's kill all the lawyers, lets kill them tonight!!"[:-,] As sung by the Eagles in a song called Get over it. As always ENJOY[8D]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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...

Well, I doubt that they qualify as full-fledged thoughts. As I have mentioned before, the decisions of foreign railways, typically government operated, rarely offers a useful guideline for operation of privately-owned railways. That someone might offer foreign railway decisions (as opposed to experience) in the context of an a priori effort to justify something done earlier on American railways is a leap in logic I will have to leave to the obvious Olympic level jumpers on this thread.

However, without any data, we do know that, post World War II, the industrial and engineering leadership that had previously substantially reposed in Germany and England, and to a lesser extent in other European countries, had shifted almost entirely to the United States. With a couple of exceptions, German and Japanese scientists in particular weren't as popular as they otherwise might have been.

So, focus shifts to the United States as the leader in many areas, including railroad techology and in many cases, the funding for rebuilding and development.

At the same time, this incredible "idea" of marketing and development emerged at General Motors. The whole idea of "planned obsolescence". The idea that you didn't let people "buy" cars, you "sold" them cars, bus systems, trucks, railroad locomotives. Bill Gates did not originate the idea of "vaporware" -- promising a feature that wasn't there yet to forestall sales to competitors -- this was developed by General Motors.

The steam guys were pretty old fashioned -- their products spoke for themselves. They underestimated the power of "selling." More importantly, they underestimated the power of "dramatized" promises, the "30% return on investment" promised by EMD, the careful adjustment of "ratings" and "comparative ratings" to show the Diesel to its maximum advantage without ever clearly stating the ratings weren't ratings above 20 mph where steam generated significantly better economic and operational performance.

You can, indeed, "massage" economic data, and that's exactly what EMD did. Norfolk & Western wasn't the first railroad to see test engines that had been quietly up-rated without disclosure to the buyer. The sales literature promising 20 year economic service lives for road power was never based on a realistic assessment; it was a manufacturer's promise that was not, could not, and has never been kept. There was no basis for the number except that it was the only way the manufacturers could justify to the buyers the higher purchase costs of diesel road power. And particularly, to justify incurring annual finance charges. And, those studies were predicated on not only 20 year service lives, but on financing at 1 and 1.5%, historical lows and historical anomalies.

Would the decision to Dieselize have been the same with a 12 year economic service life at 5%?

Well, there is a huge difference in the economic outcomes. And, in fact, there was. We see it in the Railroad ROIs.

And that can't be overcome by emotional announcements about "historical truths."

The fact is, the promises were so much hot air, backed up by discrete fudging of the data. This probably explains the affinity that several posters have for the proposition.

In any case, the sales job worked. Mysteriously, Railroad ROI began to decline. So much for that promise of 30% return on investment. It is not a massaging of data that shows that Dieselization was an economic burden, it is a massaging of reality to say that it did not: It is irrefutable that Railroad ROI declined during this period, and when the second generation came along at a higher interest rate, Railroad ROI declined again, and when the third generation came along at substantially higher interest rates, railroads were pounding on the doors of Congress for relief from their financial crisis.

Just a series of identical coincidences, right?

Foreign governments no doubt looked to American railroads for guidance and the U.S. Government for funding. Just as the French government extended loans to governments converting to its version of AC electrification, the US government extended cheap "development" loans so that foreign countries could buy EMD products at the sacrifice of domestic steam builders that the US government had no interest in supporting.

To the extent that foreign railroads looked at US railroads, and made the assumption, "gee, these guys are the leaders of the industry, who are we to question the American rail industry," it is interesting to see the logic come full circle on this thread -- and it is circular logic -- to say that "it must have been the right decision for American railways, look at all the foreign railways that did it" even as foreign railways looked at American railways and said "it must have been the right decision, American railways did it."

Now, to the gentleman who insists that this is some "revelation" by Michael Sol and/or H.F. Brown, and that its all personal, and let's make it as personal as possible, here's my response: the discussions about the economic effects of Dieselization were ongoing from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. Brown's paper was one of several that appeared in the best known engineering journals of the time. The debate was both public and extensive and, as I mentioned earlier, subjected to peer review by people actually knowledgeable about the subject and not given to announcing "historical truths" as a substitute for genuine analysis.

The fact that you have proclaimed as loudly as you can that you are totally ignorant of that debate and those published discussions offers nothing to either illuminate the discussion or refute Brown, all it does is offer exactly what you say it does: that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter and that by an interesting extension of your claim to ignorance of the debate, that everyone else must be ignorant too. What is remarkable is the chorus of voices all proudly claiming equal ignorance on that well-known debate, and happily offering their own ignorance of that discussion as a virtue in any discussion about it.

Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it.

As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

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

Hey, Old Timer, have you come up with the counter studies yet? NO?

You have proven to everyone on this forum that myth repeated enough times will misplace fact-based historical analysis. The amazing thing is that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that this analysis isn't Mr. Sol's, it is Brown's, and it is simply an independent study for an overseas client.

It certainly was not intended as a critique of the cult of idiocy known as North American railroading, but you and others on this forum have certainly brought THAT truth to light!

[Anonymous]

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.

How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered?

1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then.

2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known?

3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide.

4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error.

[Anonymous]

Diesel is better. If it wasn't the RR's would still run steam. One thing i like about steam is the FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOFFFFWWWWWWOOOOOOO...

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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...

Well, I doubt that they qualify as full-fledged thoughts. As I have mentioned before, the decisions of foreign railways, typically government operated, rarely offers a useful guideline for operation of privately-owned railways. That someone might offer foreign railway decisions (as opposed to experience) in the context of an a priori effort to justify something done earlier on American railways is a leap in logic I will have to leave to the obvious Olympic level jumpers on this thread.

However, without any data, we do know that, post World War II, the industrial and engineering leadership that had previously substantially reposed in Germany and England, and to a lesser extent in other European countries, had shifted almost entirely to the United States. With a couple of exceptions, German and Japanese scientists in particular weren't as popular as they otherwise might have been.

So, focus shifts to the United States as the leader in many areas, including railroad techology and in many cases, the funding for rebuilding and development.

At the same time, this incredible "idea" of marketing and development emerged at General Motors. The whole idea of "planned obsolescence". The idea that you didn't let people "buy" cars, you "sold" them cars, bus systems, trucks, railroad locomotives. Bill Gates did not originate the idea of "vaporware" -- promising a feature that wasn't there yet to forestall sales to competitors -- this was developed by General Motors.

The steam guys were pretty old fashioned -- their products spoke for themselves. They underestimated the power of "selling." More importantly, they underestimated the power of "dramatized" promises, the "30% return on investment" promised by EMD, the careful adjustment of "ratings" and "comparative ratings" to show the Diesel to its maximum advantage without ever clearly stating the ratings weren't ratings above 20 mph where steam generated significantly better economic and operational performance.

You can, indeed, "massage" economic data, and that's exactly what EMD did. Norfolk & Western wasn't the first railroad to see test engines that had been quietly up-rated without disclosure to the buyer. The sales literature promising 20 year economic service lives for road power was never based on a realistic assessment; it was a manufacturer's promise that was not, could not, and has never been kept. There was no basis for the number except that it was the only way the manufacturers could justify to the buyers the higher purchase costs of diesel road power. And particularly, to justify incurring annual finance charges. And, those studies were predicated on not only 20 year service lives, but on financing at 1 and 1.5%, a historical low and a historical anomaly.

Would the decision to Dieselize have been the same with a 12 year economic service life at 5%?

Well, there is a huge difference in the economic outcomes. And, in fact, there was. We see it in the Railroad ROIs.

And that can't be overcome by emotional announcements about "historical truths."

The fact is, the promises were so much hot air, backed up by discrete fudging of the data. This probably explains the affinity that several posters have for the proposition.

In any case, the sales job worked. Mysteriously, Railroad ROI began to decline. So much for that promise of 30% return on investment. It is not a massaging of data that shows that Dieselization was an economic burden, it is a massaging of reality to say that it did not: It is irrefutable that Railroad ROI declined during this period, and when the second generation came along at a higher interest rate, Railroad ROI declined again, and when the third generation came along at substantially higher interest rates, railroads were pounding on the doors of Congress for relief from their financial crisis.

Just a series of identical coincidences, right?

Foreign governments no doubt looked to American railroads for guidance and the U.S. Government for funding. Just as the French government extended loans to governments converting to its version of AC electrification, the US government extended cheap "development" loans so that foreign countries could buy EMD products at the sacrifice of domestic steam builders that the US government had no interest in supporting.

To the extent that foreign railroads looked at US railroads, and made the assumption, "gee, these guys are the leaders of the industry, who are we to question the American rail industry," it is interesting to see the logic come full circle on this thread -- and it is circular logic -- to say that "it must have been the right decision for American railways, look at all the foreign railways that did it."

Now, to the gentleman who insists that this is some "revelation" by Michael Sol and/or H.F. Brown, and that its all personal, and let's make it as personal as possible, here's my response: the discussions about the economic effects of Dieselization were ongoing from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. Brown's paper was one of several that appeared in the best known engineering journals of the time. The debate was both public and extensive and, as I mentioned earlier, subjected to peer review by people actually knowledgeable about the subject and not given to announcing "historical truths" as a substitute for genuine analysis.

The fact that you have proclaimed as loudly as you can that you are totally ignorant of that debate and those published discussions offers nothing to either illuminate the discussion or refute Brown, all it does is offer exactly what you say it does: that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter and that by an interesting extension of your claim to ignorance of the debate, that everyone else must be ignorant too. What is remarkable is the chorus of voices all proudly claiming equal ignorance on that well-known debate, and happily offering their own ignorance of that discussion as a virtue in any discussion about it.

Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it.

As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Wow, another long response BUT you still haven't answered my question. What exactly is your motivation for your thesis and what are you going to do with this "information" within the railroad industry?

[GP40-2]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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.

How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered?

1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then.

2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known?

3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide.

4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error.

In statements 1-3, you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they had no idea they were dealing with new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing. You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance?

Note: I decided on my own to edit this post to be less inflamatory in an effort to be civil in this hotly debated subject.

[rrandb]

Private or government owned they all (read everyone of them world wide) came to the same conclusion. There is no data that can refute the fact that no one has chosen steam over diesel/electric or electric. The chinese (whose system was the last to close there foundries) hung on longer than anyone. While still operating steam no longer build them. All the major steam builders tried to build and sell diesels but were too far behind GM in development and market share to remain viable. Me thinks you give to much credit to GM as they do not have a monopoly worldwide. [banghead] While your arguments are compelling no one came to the same conclusion based on the real world market place. It is the market place that ultimately decides in the end. As the steam engine began the demise of the horse drawn tram so has the D/E sounded the death knell for steam.[xx(]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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.

How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered?

1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels, except if they gave those diesels a sufficient period of service for such data collection. They were sold, lock stock & barrell, on the initial tests, and probably assumed that since steamers tended to last 30 to 50 years, and electrics seemed to last forever, the diesels would likewise have a long shelf life. You could probably give them a pass on that miscalculation then.

2. Up to the time of mass dieselization, railroad companies hadn't really experienced such entrenched financing schemes as laid out by EMD. I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI. They again just assumed that based on the initial tests regarding diesels' performance, the savings would offset any such debt. You can probably give them a pass on that then, who'duv known?

3. As stated before, they had no prior cause to believe that diesels would not last long and be relatively maintenance free. By the time the truth hit, steam manufacturing had ceased, all locomotive manufacturers had shifted production to diesel, so there was no turning back. THAT is why N & W capitulated to dieselization, they no longer had any suppliers of steam parts, and to continue to home build steam with custom made parts would have been prohibitively expensive. You will also notice that those other rail systems all over the world dieselized well after the US. US steam was king, and now the king was dead. Combine that practical fact with this inherent need of nations to be perceived as modern and progressive, and it was a cinch dieselization would take place worldwide.

4. Of course, most electric systems worldwide have stayed electric, so dieselization hasn't really replaced the "older" electric concept. In that vein your statement is in error.

In statements 1-3 it's pretty ignorant of you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they were all freaking idiots who didn't realize the were dealing with a new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." What a laugh. Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any work experience in management within the railroad industry, do you. But it is sure easly for you to sit here and tell us what people in the industry were thinking 50 years ago.

You can blather on all you want, but the reality it that you are nothing but a foamer turd.

LOL! Here I go to the trouble of giving an out for railroad management, allowing for their understandable inability to read the tea leaves of their motive power future, and some kool-aid drinking railroad Lewinsky farts out another substandard insult! Typical!

[TomDiehl]

Ironically, this whole thesis is based on the writings of one engineering firm, which was basically the work of one or two engineers. Add to that, anyone on this forum that presents any statistical data published by the railroads (remember, they're the ones that made the decision and the investment) is immediately refuted as repeating propoganda that the railroads published to cover their decisions, which according to Brown et al, was a bad one. Somehow,I don't see them as a final authority on the matter, they had nothing at stake like the railroad management did.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

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.

How is it you have no capability to read what was proffered?

1. No railroad manager could have foreseen the short shelf life of those first diesels,
...

In statements 1-3 it's pretty ignorant of you to assume railroad management at the time didn't have any clue what was going on. In your view, they were all freaking idiots who didn't realize the were dealing with a new technology. You also assume they had no knowlege of basic financing You said: " I am sure they had no idea of the long term negative effects such debt accumulation would have on the companies' ROI." What a laugh. Do you honestly believe these guys made it up the ladder and had no knowledge of finance?

Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't have any work experience in management within the railroad industry, do you. But it is sure easly for you to sit here and tell us what people in the industry were thinking 50 years ago.

You can blather on all you want, but the reality it that you are nothing but a foamer turd.

Well Dave, so much for giving management the benefit of the doubt!

Best regards, Michael Sol

[NW_611]

Well, I don't know beans about high finance---the only numbers my education dealt with were vote totals and settlement checks---and this may have been addressed earlier, but let me ask it anyways because I don't recall reading it:

How much of a factor in dieselization were the notion(s) that a) coal was either flat or due for major price hikes in availability (thanks for nothing, John L. Lewis!) or b) this new place we call 'Saudi Arabia' has centuries of cheap fuel? I ask because that kind of thinking in a way led to the development of, and the subsequent death of, the Boeing 2707.

If I remember correctly, the anecdote about the 2707 (Boeing's SST) was that it was designed to break even/make money on fuel at $0.10/gallon, but that when the Arab states said, "Ooh, embargo!", the thing became absolutely non-viable solely on fuel costs alone. It would appear to this amateur student that, if/once the low(er) diesel fuel costs of the 1950s went away either due to increased consumption or political upheavals, a supposed cost savings of the diesel-electric went away.

I suppose that even had railroad management wanted to really make a change---Ross Rowland and the ACE 3000 of which I know very little notwithstanding---the ability to do so was long gone. Sort of like an anecdote I heard where the Carter Administration wanted to bring back the previously-retired Convair B-58A Hustler strategic bomber, but was prevented from doing so by the fact that they had all been scrapped in Arizona.

To wedge one other thought in here, is there detailed information/analysis on the effect of "efficient" versus "total" dieselization? Let me try to textualize this: It's the 1950s and so you've dieselized the lightly-trafficked branch line and retired locomotives that were new when Wilson was making his Fourteen Points. You cut down on maintenance and so forth, and maybe even save some doubleheading from time to time. Do those economies transfer (or survive, whatever) when all of a sudden you've got to have five GP7s to do the work of one Class A locomotive?

I suppose I'm wondering if there was a true advantage to 'total' dieselization as opposed to a 'no other choice since we can't support Class A operations any more' situation. I'm not trying to be clever or anything; I just wonder if the management types had any other choice than the "one 251/567 fits all" solution.

Thanks for any input.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

......anyone on this forum that presents any statistical data published by the railroads....

Uh, gee, Tom, we're still waiting for such statistical refutations.[zzz] You got any you want to share?

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2

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

Other than your continuing efforts to draw attention to that fact, I can only refer to the published debate to refute your contentions on that point, and your emotional response to it.

As usual, if you have a specific observation as to how you feel the data might have been handled differently, that would be more productive for my time, and yours as well, if you simply pointed it out, rather than offering "historical truths" as a cheap substitute for actual analysis.

Best regards, Michael Sol

There is nothing emotional about the statistical evidence that 0% of railroads have come to the same conclusion as you. What "facts" do you need to see.The "historical truths" of the market place are self evident!!!

• Reply