Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, there are finally some "facts' offered, let's look at them.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

How about:

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines.

OK, that says that fuel and water costs declined.

Interestingly, the fansite that these were "lifted" from comments that these numbers are "particularly impressive" when you factor in inflation, not realizing that using percentage comparisons does, in fact, already factor in inflation. Apparently neither the railfan nor the poster above understand that. That may generate a sneaking suspicion that this was not a professional study.

However, assuming, arguendo, that plagarizing from a railfan website offers a proper means of discussing technical and economic issues, how does the information offered above differ in substance from Brown:

QUOTE: "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.

"Water Costs

"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."

Brown says that fuel and water costs declined.

Does it matter to the honest reader that Brown discussed those specific issues, and reached similar conclusions, but that Brown looked at other relevant factors as well?

Or is it relevant that these statements would be presented as the "proof" as claimed, but only by ignoring the other relevant issues examined by Brown?

TomDiehl has offered plagarized comments from a fan website and attempts to suggest that it represents a contrary conclusion, even though the specific observations are virtually identical to Brown's on the points discussed. Only the conclusions are different, and are different only by ignoring the additional relevant data, pointedly ignoring maintenance costs, lubricant costs, financing costs, crew costs, and other data examined by Brown.

This is proof of what? That somebody didn't understand what they posted, or that they didn't understand what Brown said?

It is the picture of the whole that is useful, but that is what TomDiehl has artfully avoided by his plagarized, carefully limited, comments which nonetheless led him, or someone he failed to identify, to broad and breathless conclusions about being a "lifesaver" for the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Unfortunately, the Brown study isn't definitive since it doesn't state or factor in what the railroad management felt were the important factors in the expense incurred with the change of motive power type. This is simply the opinion of one or two people in an engineering firm that aren't even working for the railroads they were evaluation. And, since the railroad management are the people that have to answer to the railroad's BOD and shareholders, their input, being ignored in this study, is a serious omission bringing about a true question of credibility.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
The bottom line is that all railroads in the world have abandoned the steam locomotive for either electric or diesel-electric. China, being the most recent, has plenty of domestic coal, had their own steam production facilities, and a full infrastructure to support steam operations. One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part.

Well, there is a little arrogance in the air, for sure as I gather from your remarks that this isn't an area you have anything in particular to offer, but you do have the confidence to challenge a professional engineer on his own turf without any apparent credentials, experience or training to do so.

Best regards, Michael Sol

That there is. "One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part."

But I guess since none of the railroads had their own professional engineers, oh wait......

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
The bottom line is that all railroads in the world have abandoned the steam locomotive for either electric or diesel-electric. China, being the most recent, has plenty of domestic coal, had their own steam production facilities, and a full infrastructure to support steam operations. One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part.

What TomDiehl, and others, are really suggesting is that the railways of the United States made a decision as to the extent and speed of Dieselization based on considerations similar to those utilized by government railways around the world and that this justifes the US experience.

Best regards, Michael Sol

More accurately, what I DID suggest is that the Brown study makes no authoritative mention as to why they changed over to the diesel as quickly as they did. There's no indication that he interviewed any railroad executives that made these decisions, only used his own criteria to evaluate the situation.

And, since the US railroads were the first to make a large scale motive power change such as this, they had no reference or other reports of experience to go by. They simply had to evaluate the decision based on the knowledge and experience of the day.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

This is proof of what? That somebody didn't understand what they posted, or that they didn't understand what Brown said?

It is the picture of the whole that is useful, but that is what TomDiehl has artfully avoided by his plagarized, carefully limited, comments which nonetheless led him, or someone he failed to identify, to broad and breathless conclusions about being a "lifesaver" for the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

No, this is proof that you're the only one that feels that Brown's study is gospel.

Or the final word.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
More accurately, what I DID suggest is that the Brown study makes no authoritative mention as to why they changed over to the diesel as quickly as they did. There's no indication that he interviewed any railroad executives that made these decisions, only used his own criteria to evaluate the situation.

So now you are claiming you have read and fully understood the entire Brown study, and that you understand what rail executives "fellt" about their needs, and that you know all about the railways of China, and that you claim that only two factors were important, fuel and water costs, because a railfan website that you plagarized misquoted and completely misunderstood a B&O study.

Interesting that even though the B&Q cite had to be complete baloney, because it ignored key cost factors of the dieselization process which I doubt any authentic railroad study would do, you defined it as gospel and offered it as your own statement that it "proved" that Dieselization was "a lifesaver."

Now you are representing that railfan websites are authentic sources of "railroad" studies, even as they obviously aren't, but that you also now know all about what Brown's study says even though you haven't read that either.

We get the picture. Loud and clear.

Let me ask: have you ever done a professional economic, historical or engineering study of anything, for a railroad, shipper, industry, government agency, college, or consulting firm? Have you ever prepared a professional paper on anything?

The reason I ask is because, at a professional level, these discussions are time-consuming and do require some research. Apparently, I'm the only one on this thread that recalls the debate on Dieselization, was able to recall specific studies on the topic, went through a number of boxes of materials to locate at least one of those studies, and spent some time scanning the studies for a couple of serious railroaders, while typing key parts of the study, including their context, for this thread.

You come blasting through with these conversations with half-connected thoughts, misunderstood snippets of someone else's misundertstanding of something they in turn read somewhere else, you claim a knowledge of an astonishing variety of things -- including today's revelations about railways in China -- without a shred of evidence to suggest a background, however slight, in any of this, and you seem to truly enjoy what appear to be lame attempts at sarcasm alternating with argument for argument's sake.

Any thought that you might give to what you are saying appears to come long after the words have been sent off. Ultimately, if it just because you like to argue about things you realistically know little about, I have to remark on how difficult it is to have a serious conversation about anything that involves you.

The Brown study is a lucid, professional study. It is based entirely on published numbers available from the ICC Reports, as well as Brown's long association with the Pennsylvania Railroad and with Gibbs & Hill. British Rail didn't choose him from a random list of names in the New York phone directory.

Whether he is "gospel" or not, he is credible in a fashion that you are not. You would be far, far more credible if you would settle down and address Brown's specific points, either critiquing his methodology -- the usual means of examination of professional papers or propositions -- or developing an alternative thesis.

Brown's paper was critiqued by professional engineers far better equipped to do the job than you are, or than I am for that matter. What I might "think" about Brown's paper, or what railroad executives might have "felt" is not relevant to the paper. It was designed to examine the results of Dieselization on US Railways, 1945-1957.

This is the kind of critique that many businesses or industries engage in after major policy or operation changes. The only thing unusual with Brown's paper is that a foreign railway paid for the study. Brown's paper is no sacred cow, but then again neither should Dieselization be the sacred cow you make it out to be.

Brown's paper rests, ultimately, on the skill, judgment and experience of its authors, as well as the soundness of their conclusions. They examined data.

They did not examine what "should" have happened, what happened 50 years later in China, the validity of decisions made by 100 or more men, or any of the other bizarre theories you have about how econometric studies should be done.

They examined actual, real data, data prepared and submitted by the railroad companies themselves.

That's the key to the discussion.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
More accurately, what I DID suggest is that the Brown study makes no authoritative mention as to why they changed over to the diesel as quickly as they did. There's no indication that he interviewed any railroad executives that made these decisions, only used his own criteria to evaluate the situation.

So now you are claiming you have read and fully understood the entire Brown study, and that you understand what rail executives "fellt" about their needs, and that you know all about the railways of China, and that you claim that only two factors were important, fuel and water costs, because a railfan website that you plagarized misquoted and completely misunderstood a B&O study.

Interesting that even though the B&Q cite had to be complete baloney, because it ignored key cost factors of the dieselization process which I doubt any authentic railroad study would do, you defined it as gospel and offered it as your own statement that it "proved" that Dieselization was "a lifesaver."

Now you are representing that railfan websites are authentic sources of "railroad" studies, even as they obviously aren't, but that you also now know all about what Brown's study says even though you haven't read that either.

We get the picture. Loud and clear.

Best regards, Michael Sol

No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole claim is a wash.

The only thing I'm arguing with is YOUR interpretation of Brown's report. Since the accepted facts since the 50's are that dieselization saved the railroads money, Brown is the one going against what is considered convential knowledge. The burden of proof is on HIS REPORT, which you've failed time and again to prove that he is more authoritative than the people that wrote the reports for the railroads.

And to assist your reading skills again, what I did say was you've made no mention that Brown had any contact or interview with railroad executives to ask if they had other criteria or long range plans to take on a short term loss for a longer term gain. I never said "I know" but you have yet to show that Brown could state that he knew. Or you know.

And once again, anyone that cites a study that disagrees with the all powerful Brown must be wrong because it refutes your opinion.

Maybe you should try reading the magazines that support this forum. Or are you going to claim that they're biased, too?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Let me ask: have you ever done a professional economic, historical or engineering study of anything, for a railroad, shipper, industry, government agency, college, or consulting firm? Have you ever prepared a professional paper on anything?

The reason I ask is because, at a professional level, these discussions are time-consuming and do require some research. Apparently, I'm the only one on this thread that recalls the debate on Dieselization, was able to recall specific studies on the topic, went through a number of boxes of materials to locate at least one of those studies, and spent some time scanning the studies for a couple of serious railroaders, while typing key parts of the study, including their context, for this thread.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. But since somebody "spent a lot of time" crunching and massaging numbers to come up with a different conclusion, his word must be gospel.

Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

Or do you have other reports to support Brown's thesis?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown.

If there is such a thing as self-inflicted ignorance, these comments pretty well sum up the case for TomDiehl.

If you have any actual "facts" from these many,many claimed "studies" for which you don't seem to be able to identify a single author, a single publication, or a single coherently analytical thread, as to opposed to an obviously flawed internet rendition, I would be more than glad to discuss them on their merits. I attempted to do so with your B&O "study" which pretty much fell apart on its own, but oddly you don't seem to be able to do so with the Brown study, except by insulting Brown, even though now changing course yet again to claim you haven't read the study.

Odd how, at each turn when you claim something, you don't seem to be able to back it up except by random claims to anonymous engineers, writing anonymous papers that you don't seem to actually have and of which I am certain you have never read.

Of course, just as you know what Brown's paper says without having read it, it is at least consistent that you can claim to already know what all the railroad studies unanimously say without having read any of them either.

I admire your consistency, if nothing else.

If you have any numbers or methodology you wi***o discuss, let me know, but as for your virtolic attacks and empty arguments, I've got better things to do with my time, and I'm sure everyone else does too.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Dear everybody,
Take a chill pill!!!!

The last time I posted on this thread was around page four. I have been following it though. I must say that while I am not convinced by Mr. Sol, he has shown me considerable evidence for his case, and if I were ever debating dieselizing my railroad, I would take his points into very serious consideration.

If you don't like this thread, then don't read it.

If you don't like what somebody is saying, then be POLITE about it.

Just because it is a moot point doesn't mean that we cannot reap the benefits of examining history. Personally, I give Mr. Sol my koodos for standing up to 24 pages of evidentiary challenges and personal attacks.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown.

If there is such a thing as self-inflicted ignorance, these comments pretty well sum up the case for TomDiehl.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not the narrow minded one that found some obscure study, done by someone working outside the US rail industry for a foreign railroad that must still be running steam, if you believe the convoluted path that your "logic" has tried to take us.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown.

If you have any actual "facts" from these many,many claimed "studies" for which you don't seem to be able to identify a single author, a single publication, or a single coherently analytical thread, as to opposed to an obviously flawed internet rendition, I would be more than glad to discuss them on their merits. I attempted to do so with your B&O "study" which pretty much fell apart on its own, but oddly you don't seem to be able to do so with the Brown study, except by insulting Brown, even though now changing course yet again to claim you haven't read the study.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So I found a reference to a couple studies done by a couple railroads that happened to be posted on a railfan site. Since they disagree with the all powerful Oz, I mean Brown, they must be "an obviously flawed internet rendition."

Sorry but your concrete mind is showing through again.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Odd how, at each turn when you claim something, you don't seem to be able to back it up except by random claims to anonymous engineers, writing anonymous papers that you don't seem to actually have and of which I am certain you have never read.

Of course, just as you know what Brown's paper says without having read it, it is at least consistent that you can claim to already know what all the railroad studies unanimously say without having read any of them either.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Of course I, as well as everyone else on the forum, know only the parts of Brown's study that you have cared to publish here. I'm sure all of us have access to ALL the obscure studies done on railroads over the years.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Odd how, at each turn when you claim something, you don't seem to be able to back it up except by random claims to anonymous engineers, writing anonymous papers that you don't seem to actually have and of which I am certain you have never read.

Best regards, Michael Sol

OK, on the statement that China is converting away from steam power on their railroads:

Big Steam's Last Stand
Railfan & Railroad, August 2002 page 44
Inner Mongolia's Ji-Tong Railway

Greatest railroad show on earth
Trains, December 2002 page 42
Steam in China

The last winter
Trains, June 2005 page 38
Steam in China

Now notice that I've referenced sources that many of the readers of this forum probably have access to and can read, unlike some obscure study published and available who knows where.

PS: These I HAVE read, as probably many of the forum readers have also read them.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. But since somebody "spent a lot of time" crunching and massaging numbers to come up with a different conclusion, his word must be gospel.

Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

Well, this has become a content-free zone. You've changed your contentions so many times, and misread so much material, I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's change that.

Cite your specific source, just one of the final reports from just one "of the engineering departments of all the railroads."

Provide the name of the author, his credentials, the specific name of the study, and either the publication it appeared in -- even if its as "obscure" as the Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers -- or the archive it resides in. Please do not refer me to Railfan and Railroad Magazine for any engineering or econometric studies.

All we need to do is just look at one of the many reports you say you have read, and then we can discuss it in appropriate detail. A copy of the ICC Transport Statistics of the United States is a block away, so its easy to check any disputed information.

As I did for you for both Milwaukee Road at some considerable time on my part, and as I then again did for you with Brown's Study, please provide a comprehensive summary of the key financial data analyzed, and the methodology for the summary as used by the author(s).

I am looking forward to seeing the information to which you have constantly referred.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole laim is a wash.

You don't know what a "Professional Engineer" is, do you?

Pretty rare on railroads of that era.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole laim is a wash.

You don't know what a "Professional Engineer" is, do you?

Pretty rare on railroads of that era.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, maybe you should enlighten us as to how a "professional engineer" is different than someone who graduated engineering college and works in the profession of engineering.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. But since somebody "spent a lot of time" crunching and massaging numbers to come up with a different conclusion, his word must be gospel.

Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

Well, this has become a content-free zone. You've changed your contentions so many times, and misread so much material, I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's change that.

Best regards, Michael Sol

More accurately, you've made it a content exclusive zone. If it's not in the obscure report by the almighty Brown, it must not be worth considering. Talk about tunnel vision.

And I've lost count of the number of times I've had to correct YOUR reading ability of my questions. I guess it would be easy to accuse the other person of "misreading." And since I don't agree that Brown is the final all powerful authority on something that happened 50+ years ago, I guess you wouldn't understand.

It's something called skepticism. He has made statements against what has, over the years, become the accepted knowledge. You have yet to show that he has any more claim to accuracy or truth than the other engineers of the day.

I'm sure I could surf around the net and find an engineering study that proves the world is flat. That just MIGHT bring up my skepticism again, though.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole laim is a wash.

You don't know what a "Professional Engineer" is, do you?

Pretty rare on railroads of that era.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, maybe you should enlighten us as to how a "professional engineer" is different than someone who graduated engineering college and works in the profession of engineering.

I had a hunch.

A Professional Engineer has passed and obtained a license for that credential. It is much like the examination that a doctor, a lawyer, or a CPA has to pass in order to represent to the public that they are qualified.

Unlike a doctor, lawyer, or CPA, the PE credential is not required for employment in the engineering profession. Well, actually, a license isn't necessary either for a doctor, lawyer, or CPA if someone wants to hire them; they just can't represent that they are licensed: that is, that they have met certain specific qualifications and passed an examnation that allows them to say they are a doctor, lawyer, or CPA within a given jurisdiction.

Perhaps to some extent in large organizations a PE is discouraged because it represents both a higher wage requirement, but also an easier "portability" into another company.

According to the National Society of Professional Engineers:

"Professional engineers (PEs) have fulfilled the education and experience requirements and passed the rigorous exams that, under state licensure laws, permit them to offer engineering services directly to the public. PEs take legal responsibility for their engineering designs and are bound by a code of ethics to protect the public health and safety.

"Engineering licensure laws vary from state to state, but, in general, to become a PE an individual must be a graduate of an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, gain four years of experience working under a PE, and pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam."

The FE exam, for instance, is a relatively straightforward test of engineering principles. The PE exam tests problem solvng skills, of the type that someone might hire H.F. Brown for as a consutlant.

From the May, 1999 Mechanical Engineering by Cindy Smith, "To License or Not to License, that is the Question":

"While the FE tests basic engineering concepts and mathematics, the PE tests an engineer's ability to assimilate math and the physical sciences and apply that assimilation to a problem. While experienced engineers have the knowledge to pass the exam, they likely don't have the ability to explain the solution in the time allotted to finish either exam, particularly the PE.

The failure rate on these exams is high.

"In 1994, ... 63 percent of mechanical engineers who took the PE exam failed. In 1995, the failure rate was close to 65 percent.
...
"While waivers for the FE [based on experience] are granted occasionally by states, waivers for the PE exam are rarely granted .... Responses to a 1998 survey of the state licensing offices, the most recent one done by NCEES, showed that only 13 of the 55 U.S. jurisdictions that issue licenses have a provision for long-established practice. And of those 13, only three—Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio—require fewer than 10 years of experience to grant the waiver.
....
"A license seems to carry weight with prospective contractors .... "We have heard stories from companies that the P.E. translates well, .... It means a whole lot more than some little Twinkie certification from a company."

To be a consultant like Brown, one must have a PE license. During the era under discussion, the credential was not common in the rail industry, it was in fact unusual.

Brown had a Doctorate in engineering as well. Qualified engineers with those kinds of credentials had no reason to keep working for a single railroad company; call them "underutilized" if you will, but because of their demonstrated experience and problem solving skills, they were more likely to end up in consulting work at firms like Gibbs & Hill.

That's why experienced railroads such as the Pennsylvania almost routinely hired firms like Gibbs & Hill on important questions. That's where the best talent ended up.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

25 pages and we're still talking about that loser brown? geez get over it, he was a farse, his staudy was biased, he was a loser, now drop it and let's move on. this thread has been dead for so long that it can be smelt on pluto! let it finally be buried!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole laim is a wash.

You don't know what a "Professional Engineer" is, do you?

Pretty rare on railroads of that era.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, maybe you should enlighten us as to how a "professional engineer" is different than someone who graduated engineering college and works in the profession of engineering.

I had a hunch.

A Professional Engineer has passed and obtained a license for that credential. It is much like the examination that a doctor, a lawyer, or a CPA has to pass in order to represent to the public that they are qualified.

Unlike a doctor, lawyer, or CPA, the PE credential is not required for employment in the engineering profession. Well, actually, a license isn't necessary either for a doctor, lawyer, or CPA if someone wants to hire them; they just can't represent that they are licensed: that is, that they have met certain specific qualifications and passed an examnation that allows them to say they are a doctor, lawyer, or CPA within a given jurisdiction.

Perhaps to some extent in large organizations a PE is discouraged because it represents both a higher wage requirement, but also an easier "portability" into another company.

According to the National Society of Professional Engineers:

"Professional engineers (PEs) have fulfilled the education and experience requirements and passed the rigorous exams that, under state licensure laws, permit them to offer engineering services directly to the public. PEs take legal responsibility for their engineering designs and are bound by a code of ethics to protect the public health and safety.

"Engineering licensure laws vary from state to state, but, in general, to become a PE an individual must be a graduate of an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, gain four years of experience working under a PE, and pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam."

The FE exam, for instance, is a relatively straightforward test of engineering principles. The PE exam tests problem solvng skills, of the type that someone might hire H.F. Brown for as a consutlant.

From the May, 1999 Mechanical Engineering by Cindy Smith, "To License or Not to License, that is the Question":

"While the FE tests basic engineering concepts and mathematics, the PE tests an engineer's ability to assimilate math and the physical sciences and apply that assimilation to a problem. While experienced engineers have the knowledge to pass the exam, they likely don't have the ability to explain the solution in the time allotted to finish either exam, particularly the PE.

The failure rate on these exams is high.

"In 1994, ... 63 percent of mechanical engineers who took the PE exam failed. In 1995, the failure rate was close to 65 percent.
...
"While waivers for the FE [based on experience] are granted occasionally by states, waivers for the PE exam are rarely granted .... Responses to a 1998 survey of the state licensing offices, the most recent one done by NCEES, showed that only 13 of the 55 U.S. jurisdictions that issue licenses have a provision for long-established practice. And of those 13, only three—Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio—require fewer than 10 years of experience to grant the waiver.
....
"A license seems to carry weight with prospective contractors .... "We have heard stories from companies that the P.E. translates well, .... It means a whole lot more than some little Twinkie certification from a company."

To be a consultant like Brown, one must have a PE licxense. During the era under discussion, the credential was not common in the rail industry, it was in fact unusual.

Brown had a Doctorate in engineering as well. Qualified engineers wiith those kinds of credentials had no reason to keep working for a single railroad company; call them "underutilized" if you will, but because of their demonstrated experience and problem solving skills, they were more likely to end up in consulting work at firms like Gibbs & Hill.

That's why experienced railroads hired firms like Gibbs & Hill on important questions. That's where the best talent ended up.

Best regards, Michael Sol

OMG, he had a license to FREELANCE???? This just funnier all the time.

So back to an original question of mine that has gone unanswered:

Did he consult with the railroad officials or management to see if they had any other criteria that they used in evaluating the decision to change types of motive power? Or was the selection of evaluation criteria his own?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
So back to an original question of mine that has gone unanswered:

Did he consult with the railroad officials or management to see if they had any other criteria that they used in evaluating the decision to change types of motive power? Or was the selection of evaluation criteria his own?

This is getting pretty repetitive.

The name of the study is the ""Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America."

Not, "Economic Rationalizations for Dieselization," or "Why We Thought it Was A Good Idea to Guarantee Continually Falling ROIs for the Next Thirty Years Because We're Not Interested in Short Term Profit at the Sacrifice of Long Term Losses."

The Evaluation data was taken from the ICC Transport Statistics of the United States, a standard source of such data, compiled by the railroads themselves according to ICC Reporting Requirements. The Evaluation Critera involved looking at age classes of motive power, fuel use costs, maintenance costs, engine house expenses, crew costs, water costs, lubricant costs, and financing costs associated with the motive power fleet, and distingushed these costs between yard and road locomotives..

The B&O "study" you touted as "proof" only discussed fuel and water costs, which is why I do not believe that was a "railroad study" because I don't think a railroad is dumb enough to claim that, fully, as any kind of a "study."

Now, where's one of those many real "studies" that you claim you know all about, and the opportunity to discuss, in detail, an engineering refutation of Brown?

Remember: "Name of author, credentials, name of study, name of periodical, date of publication, or location of archive."

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

25 pages and we're still talking about that loser brown? geez get over it, he was a farse, his staudy was biased, he was a loser,

Well MichaelSol said he was a consultant.

There's one thing you two agree about.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

25 pages and we're still talking about that loser brown? geez get over it, he was a farse, his staudy was biased, he was a loser,

Well MichaelSol said he was a consultant.

There's one thing you two agree about.

Umm..you must have mis-interpreted that, I don't perscribe to the "all mighty brown" theology. In fact i'm highly sceptical of it and believe that the cost analysis performed by the railroads were much better studies. there's no disputing that deisels produced higher profits for the railroads and that there was major justificaation for abandoning steam in favor of them. now we've spent 25...err excuse me 26 pages listing the the "all mighty Brown" spatter over and over again, yet several times it's been very obvious (except to 1 or 2) that mass deiselization was in the railroads best interest.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
So back to an original question of mine that has gone unanswered:

Did he consult with the railroad officials or management to see if they had any other criteria that they used in evaluating the decision to change types of motive power? Or was the selection of evaluation criteria his own?

This is getting pretty repetitive.

The name of the study is the ""Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America."

Not, "Economic Rationalizations for Dieselization," or "Why We Thought it Was A Good Idea to Guarantee Continually Falling ROIs for the Next Thirty Years Because We're Not Interested in Short Term Profit at the Sacrifice of Long Term Losses."

The Evaluation data was taken from the ICC Transport Statistics of the United States, a standard source of such data, compiled by the railroads themselves according to ICC Reporting Requirements. The Evaluation Critera involved looking at age classes of motive power, fuel use costs, maintenance costs, engine house expenses, crew costs, water costs, lubricant costs, and financing costs associated with the motive power fleet, and distingushed these costs between yard and road locomotives..

The B&O "study" you touted as "proof" only discussed fuel and water costs, which is why I do not believe that was a "railroad study" because I don't think a railroad is dumb enough to claim that, fully, as any kind of a "study."

Now, where's one of those many real "studies" that you claim you know all about, and the opportunity to discuss, in detail, an engineering refutation of Brown?

Remember: "Name of author, credentials, name of study, name of periodical, date of publication, or location of archive."

Best regards, Michael Sol

So you're saying that his professional arrogance led him to believe that he would think of every possible criteria for evaluating the ""Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America."

Somebody that thinks he is so infallable must not think himself human.

And sets himself up for failure when others point out that he missed something so obvious.

Source: me, and since I'm an "idiot" (as described by some legal professional who's opinion is also questionable) and saw this, his whole argument can easily be assumed to be full of such holes since an "idiot" found one so obvious.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

25 pages and we're still talking about that loser brown? geez get over it, he was a farse, his staudy was biased, he was a loser,

Well MichaelSol said he was a consultant.

There's one thing you two agree about.

Umm..you must have mis-interpreted that, I don't perscribe to the "all mighty brown" theology. In fact i'm highly sceptical of it and believe that the cost analysis performed by the railroads were much better studies. there's no disputing that deisels produced higher profits for the railroads and that there was major justificaation for abandoning steam in favor of them. now we've spent 25...err excuse me 26 pages listing the the "all mighty Brown" spatter over and over again, yet several times it's been very obvious (except to 1 or 2) that mass deiselization was in the railroads best interest.

Consultant----Loser

Six---Half a dozen

Different ways to say the same thing.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: believe that the cost analysis performed by the railroads were much better studies. there's no disputing that deisels produced higher profits for the railroads

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

I have no idea on which RR's threw what away, or what you are talking about there, but other than that the fact that it was 35 years ago when my files on this were put in storage, I have no desire to go looking for them. Took me three days and 15 boxes just to find the Brown study.

But, unlike you, I am also not offering them as proof of anything, because I don't think they were proof of anything. They are not worth my time, but you think they are worth your time.

You seem to feel there is some proof of "someting" somewhere. Since I don't know specifically what you are looking at or referring to, I'm not inclined to keep looking for and reproducing studies until you find one that suits what you claim you already know. That's kind of your job; it's your claim.

You and TomDiehl have represented to this forum that you both have knowledge of studies that support your contentions. By all means, I invite you, once again, to produce one, just one of the many you allege were done, and then we can talk about it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

I have no idea on which RR's threw what away, or what you are talking about there, but other than that the fact that it was 35 years ago when my files on this were put in storage, I have no desire to go looking for them. Took me three days and 15 boxes just to find the Brown study.

But, unlike you, I am also not offering them as proof of anything, because I don't think they were proof of anything. They are not worth my time, but you think they are worth your time.

You seem to feel there is some proof of "someting" somewhere. Since I don't know specifically what you are looking at or referring to, I'm not inclined to keep looking for and reproducing studies until you find one that suits what you claim you already know. That's kind of your job; it's your claim.

But by all means, if you think you have a study, which is what you and TomDiehl have claimed, and that it offers something to the conversation, I invite you, once again, to produce it and then we can talk about it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I don't have any study, and have never read one.

All I have is something I ran across in a publication that explained how diesels for this company were really beginning to show efficiencies for the company by 1962. They used a "cost per mile" metric, and showed a percent reduction in costs for their locomotives compared to the previous several years.

[MichaelSol]

And, what did they include in "costs?"

Was that like the B&O "study" cited by Tom Diehl? Limited to Fuel and water?

If so, I have no doubt that it showed cost reductions. For those same cost drivers, isolated from all other considerations, H.F. Brown can be quoted as showing the same thing. I demonstrated the same thing for the Milwaukee Road.

Best regards, Michael Sol