Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[TomDiehl]

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?

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.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So, the Brown study is worth your full support, but the railroads own studies, which you also claim to have, are worth nothing?

Would that be "tunnel vision" or "narrow minded?"

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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?

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.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So, the Brown study is worth your full support, but the railroads own studies, which you also claim to have, are worth nothing?

Would that be "tunnel vision" or "narrow minded?"

Actually, I'm not aware of all that many railroads actually doing studies, I think you claimed there was a bunch, I didn't. In fact, I think you claimed they all did studies. Maybe so, I haven't seen anything like that, and can't make the claim. I do recall a couple by GM/EMD. and vaguely recall two railroad studies. Maybe one of them was the B&O "study," hence my low opinion.

I do now recall that in his Dieselization study Th. Thelander looked in considerable detail at the Santa Fe, perhaps even going so far as to discuss their internal "studies" in his published paper.

So I am interested in all the ones you claim to have seen from "all the railroad engineering departments," and the specific methodology that you claim specifically refutes Brown. If what you say is true, that's got to be some good stuff, and I would like the opportunity to review it.

I didn't really see anything that ever did that, and that is my reasoning for inviting you to post at least one of the many studies you say you know about, have read, and presumably have, or for which you can no doubt provide a citation [no railfan magazines please] or at least an archive location.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Best regards, Michael Sol

The information printed was based on internal findings, but was not presented in full detail, so I cannot answer your question.

[solzrules]

You people are nuts. Do you really think complaining about studies, studies, and more studies is really going to make a difference? I just got done reading your conversation and I can't believe someone would acutally debate this topic in such a ridiculous context. I kind of feel like I have been cheated out of the last 40 minutes of my life somehow. If all of their "studies" showed that it was cost effective to go with a diesel engine as opposed to steam it sure seems to me that the railroads have already made that descision. I don't think they ALL could be wrong. But what do I know. I don't work in the industry, and after seeing this exchange maybe that's a good thing. You don't need to argue about studies to know the following:

Steam engines require a ton of maintenance. It they could build a low maintenance steam engine that was profitable for the railroad (or any industry), I think they would have done that by now.
Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least. Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me. (Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)
You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

I thought these forums would be interesting, but all I have seen so far is something akin to a sandbox in a playground. I think I am going to go outside, get some fresh, non-stale, non ***ing air. Maybe I will walk down to the Wisconsin Southern tracks and watch a railroad succeed with cast away GP38's on a track that the Milwaukee(Ogilvie) figured was worthless.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

You people are nuts. Do you really think complaining about studies, studies, and more studies is really going to make a difference? I just got done reading your conversation and I can't believe someone would acutally debate this topic in such a ridiculous context. I kind of feel like I have been cheated out of the last 40 minutes of my life somehow.

Ah, well, you haven't been around this forum long enough yet. You see, some threads are more for entertainment than anything else.

QUOTE:
Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me.

Electric utilities don't seem to have much of a problem using steam as a mechanical force. We'd all be hunkering in the dark without steam.

QUOTE:
(Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)

I wonder if they worried much about liability back then. They certainly do today. I think Steamtown in Scranton PA had to cut back on some excursions because they couldn't afford the insurance a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

You people are nuts.

Detailed discussions have no bearing on the collective sanity (or lack thereof) of the forum participants. Now, if someone was to act on this information and go out and buy 10,000 shares of Ralph's New Millenium Steam Locomotive Company, now that would be nuts.......

QUOTE:
If all of their "studies" showed that it was cost effective to go with a diesel engine as opposed to steam it sure seems to me that the railroads have already made that descision. I don't think they ALL could be wrong.

The salient point of this discussion was that (1) the diesel buyers could not foresee that relatively short shelf life of those first generation diesels, I am sure they expected the same level of longivity as they had experienced with steam and electric locomotives, and (2) GM/EMD did "sex up" some of the performance data in order to make the sale, promising returns on the investment that never came about. Because of #1 and #2 above, the railroads were willing to accumulate unprececented debt to finance the purchase of these first diesels, and the resultant industry ROI went down in the two decades immediately following the mass dieselization. They weren't "wrong" per se, they were just a bit short-sighted.

QUOTE:
Steam engines require a ton of maintenance. It they could build a low maintenance steam engine that was profitable for the railroad (or any industry), I think they would have done that by now.

Analogy:
Coal fired power plants require immensely more maintenance than natural gas fired power plants, yet the cost of the power coming from those coal fired power plants is now roughly half that of those natural gas power plants. What it comes down to today is whether the lower cost of the fuel makes up for the increased maintenance. If there was such a thing as production line steam engines being made today, it may very well be that their cost performance would easily beat that of diesels. EPA compliance would probably be the big hang up now.

QUOTE:
Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least. Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me. (Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)

Just for the record, how many instances of modern (1940's) steam boiler explosions can you recall? I doubt that such a likelyhood was prevelant enough to even enter the calculations of steam vs diesel costs.

QUOTE: You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

Again, not sure if precision control played a role in the steam vs diesel debate. We do know that now computer controls can make steam propulsion as precise as any other form of locomotive prime mover. Pollution control may be another matter though.

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
Electric utilities don't seem to have much of a problem using steam as a mechanical force. We'd all be hunkering in the dark without steam.

True. But if you tried to pack all of the various systems involved in a power plant onto a locomotive chasis you would have something that would be in a circus, not on a railroad. Modern power plants have multiple systems involved in electric generation. They also have redundant equipment (back up compressors, double-fed electric systems, two or more generators, multiple burners, pulverizers, control systems, etc.) This would be incredilby uneconomical to fit in a locomotive, even if it is reduced to several thousand horsepower in scale.

QUOTE:
Just for the record, how many instances of modern (1940's) steam boiler explosions can you recall? I doubt that such a likelyhood was prevelant enough to even enter the calculations of steam vs diesel costs.

Just for the record? I can't cite reports to you that will prove my point any more than you guys can cite reports about the reasons railraods went diesel. What I can tell you is this. Steam is very dangerous. High pressure steam is even more dangerous because all condensation is gone from the air. A pin hole in a high pressure steam line will sever a limb without you ever knowing what happened. You won't see the steam because there is no condensation in it to see. Here is a little story for you that I have heard from employees of one of the power plants I have worked in. 2 employees were working on some catwalks on one of the burners at a coal fired plant (I will not name names for professional reasons. Besides, if you are really bored you can look it up in the OSHA incident reports). A steam line burst 40 feet away from their location. Both employees heard the explosion and ran like hell for the escape ladders, but by the time they got there the steam had reached them. They died of severe burns to their bodies as well as in their lungs. This was a low pressure explosion. That is one story. I won't bore you with 53 more of them because based on my past readings of this fiasco stories don't seem to much matter.

[TomDiehl]

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.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Now this statement seems to suggest that you >DO< have other studies, in addition to the Brown study. You don't know what you have in storage? Most people as methodical as you seem to be would at least have an inventory somewhere.

And while looking through those "15 boxes" you didn't notice any other studies?

But the Brown study is more authoritative?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

You people are nuts. Do you really think complaining about studies, studies, and more studies is really going to make a difference? I just got done reading your conversation and I can't believe someone would acutally debate this topic in such a ridiculous context. I kind of feel like I have been cheated out of the last 40 minutes of my life somehow. If all of their "studies" showed that it was cost effective to go with a diesel engine as opposed to steam it sure seems to me that the railroads have already made that descision. I don't think they ALL could be wrong. But what do I know. I don't work in the industry, and after seeing this exchange maybe that's a good thing. You don't need to argue about studies to know the following:

You missed the point Soltz, we're going for the "Comedy Thread of the Year" award. [:D]

And it's SOOOO easy to get Michael going. Just question the almighty Brown study.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least. Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me. (Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)
You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

We came close in Gettysburg a few years ago. [xx(]

[espeefoamer]

It is amazing that this debate has been going on for 26 pages on this forum when the railroads setled the matter in the 40s and 50s. It took several more decades for the rest of the world,but they,too decided in favor of diesels(or in some cases electrics).Even China recently dieselized the last steam operated line in the world.I am sure there are still some pockets of steam left here and there,but for the most part steam has breathed its last. This is sad but true[:(].

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least. Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me. (Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)
You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

We came close in Gettysburg a few years ago. [xx(]

Oops, almost forgot the reference (some good pictures, too, especially the buckled crown sheet.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9605.pdf

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least

That is one thing i will always hate about steam.

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
You missed the point Soltz, we're going for the "Comedy Thread of the Year" award. [:D]

okay, this begins to make more sense..... prehaps all is not lost. for a minute there I was tempted to become a truck driver just to screw over the rail industry. [banghead]

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
Again, not sure if precision control played a role in the steam vs diesel debate. We do know that now computer controls can make steam propulsion as precise as any other form of locomotive prime mover. Pollution control may be another matter though.

Yes, that may be true. But an AC motor has the lowest amount of maintenance required. Steam engines have rods, pistons, seals, lubrication, and so on. Computers will not replace these items, although they may help to reduce wear and tear on them. DC motors have commutators and brushes, items that will not function with any kind of dirt buildup on them. Again, computers will not fix this either. Not only that, DC voltage requires some fairly bulky technology to regulate, although DC drives have gotten better in the past 10 years. AC motors have very few mechanical parts. A simple squirrel cage AC motor consists of maybe three or four parts. That means you have less parts to stock. The parts you do have are standardized, and the only bearings you replace are permanently sealed. AC motors get expensive to control because the electronics are fairly new. Until solid state electronics made it into heavy industrial use, the only solid state electronics were in computers. Now they have designed components that can stand up to 1000amps without a hitch. They cost more, but the initial investment pays for itself in reduced maintenance cost. That is why new AC locomotives are more expensive then older DC locos. And unless a low maintenance steam engine is ever designed (and your kidding yourself if you think there is low maintenance in ANY power plant be it coal, gas, nuke, or whatever) I don't think that steam will be revisited by any railroad.

[Anonymous]

Let me see if I can recap 27 pages of BS in just a couple of paragraphs.

MichaelSol presents the theory that it was a mistake for the railroads to dieselize. He uses as his primary backup a study by a consultant who did a questionable study for an overseas client. The consultant, Brown, never did anything significant in the US.

We've had reams of people objecting to Sol's conclusions, and Sol has gotten ever more verbose in trying to refute these objections, leading to his getting somewhat snippy with TomDiehl, a couple of pages back.

One of Sol's talking points is wondering why nobody has presented any evidence to refute his conclusions.

I tried to make this point a few pages back: the rest of us do not NEED to present evidence to prove Sol wrong. The reason is that HISTORY has proven him and Mr. Brown wrong, and he just can't bring himself to admit it.

His continued efforts have reduced him in stature to that of a troll.

Old Timer

[NW_611]

Well, now that all the lines have been drawn and all the cowpies flung at each side, is there any chance that my probably half-baked questions could be answered, addressed, or at least curtly dismissed? [D)]

[Anonymous]

NW_611 -

You'd probably be better advised to start another thread than try to get anything out of this one . . .

Old Timer

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
[Steam engines require a ton of maintenance. It they could build a low maintenance steam engine that was profitable for the railroad (or any industry), I think they would have done that by now.

There seems to be little support in the historical record for that. Milwaukee Road figures show maintenance costs went up. Brown's study for all Class I railroads shows that maintenance costs went up.

If it is so "obvious" that maintenance costs went down, then why does there seem to be so much difficulty showing any numbers to support it? OldTimer and TomDiehl seem to be able to generate a lot of name-calling, but are unable to generate a factual analysis, despite the allegation of so many studies "by all the railroads" unanimously showing the contrary. If there are that many studies, they should be like wallpaper. Oddly, OldTimer and TomDiehl just seem to have misplaced their copies. When I misplaced mine, I grabbed some annual reports and did an analysis. They can't seem to do that either. What's the problem here?

It is a rare historic event of so much consequence that is so obvious that no one seems to be able to actually show it to be true. It's not that hard to go through some annual reports. The Transport Statistics are in libraries all over the place. This just isn't that hard to prove, if it is so obviously true. Good grief, this is a numbers question: just show the numbers if it so obvious.

QUOTE: Steam is deadly.

So is high voltage railway electrification. It outlasted steam and it will outlast diesel. Steam boilers are still commonplace in office building installations, our insurance carrier expresses no concerns about ours and our Stationary Engineer reports to me he hasn't heard of a boiler explosion in about 40 years. Interestingly enough, he says that either mechanical or modern electronic controls and sensors make that just about impossible. He also says they are foolproof, but cautions that there is always a fool out there somewhere that will prove the adage wrong.

QUOTE:
You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

What that has to do with the debate during the period of Dieselization is zero. There have been several AC traction motor threads where I am sure your comments might be useful.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Let me see if I can recap 27 pages of BS in just a couple of paragraphs.

MichaelSol presents the theory that it was a mistake for the railroads to dieselize.

Never said that. Oddly enough neither did Brown.

Historical discussion on issues with important economic consequence are interesting enough on their own merits, but it is surely the distinction of a weak case when you have to fabricate a false position for someone, in the obvious absence of a case for you to argue otherwise. I gather it's just easier to make stuff up, that's actually all you've done on this entire thread.

In light of multiple comments that have nothing factual to offer on the topic at all, your sudden announcement that Brown's study was "questionable" raises the obvious question: on what specific grounds? In "27 pages of BS", you've never given a hint as to what those might be.

I am told, incidentally, that Brown participated in over 100 consulting studies for major US railroads during his career. I assume that his professional achievements are what seems to generate an extraordinary hostility on your part towards him since you become inarticulate when it comes to actually providing any facts on the subject of the thread.

I noted earlier you dismissed the PE credential somewhat contemptuously, and apparently the Doctorate degree in engineering as well. Now you falsify and misrepresent his record. Then you libel his study. Given the source, it doesn't hurt Brown's reputation one single bit, but it raises inevitable questions about you: since your allegations are plainly not true, what's your motive?.

There is nothing on the face of a straightforward econometric study by a reputable consulting firm that seems to justify the unending, entirely personal attacks on H.F. Brown. I suspect something personal at the bottom of all these bitter comments, possibly about the inability to pass the PE exam, or a job perhaps at Gibbs & Hill? Got a paper rejected by a professional journal and had to go to a railfan magazine? There is simply too much bitterness in your comments to reflect the balanced judgment of a professional regarding a published paper in a prestigious, well-known engineering journal, by a well-known motive power engineer, at a reputable consulting firm.

Wthout an explanation, your comments appear only gratuitous, ad hominem and entirely unprofessional.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

amusing that the folks who complained about too many pages back on page 24 added about three more pages to the thread with their complaints. [:D]

Good night and best wishes all.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

amusing that the folks who complained about too many pages back on page 24 added about three more pages to the thread with their complaints.... and now here we are on page 27 still complaining .... (uh oh, incoming tomato... cementmixr scurrying for cover again... [:D] )

Touche'.

Best laugh I've had all day.

Best, Michael Sol

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

You people are nuts.
I just got done reading your conversation and I can't believe someone would acutally debate this topic in such a ridiculous context. I kind of feel like I have been cheated out of the last 40 minutes of my life somehow. I thought these forums would be interesting, but all I have seen so far is something akin to a sandbox in a playground.
I think I am going to go outside, get some fresh, non-stale, non ***ing air. Maybe I will walk down to the Wisconsin Southern tracks and watch a railroad succeed with cast away GP38's on a track that the Milwaukee(Ogilvie) figured was worthless.

There is a 21 page thread on the Milwaukee Road which is somewhat similar-
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22066

[bobwilcox]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

You people are nuts.
I just got done reading your conversation and I can't believe someone would acutally debate this topic in such a ridiculous context. I kind of feel like I have been cheated out of the last 40 minutes of my life somehow. I thought these forums would be interesting, but all I have seen so far is something akin to a sandbox in a playground.
I think I am going to go outside, get some fresh, non-stale, non ***ing air. Maybe I will walk down to the Wisconsin Southern tracks and watch a railroad succeed with cast away GP38's on a track that the Milwaukee(Ogilvie) figured was worthless.

There is a 21 page thread on the Milwaukee Road which is somewhat similar-
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22066

Do you remember the GREAT MONTANA WHEAT WAR! There seems to be a common influence in all of these discussions. Pettifogs rule.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Let me see if I can recap 27 pages of BS in just a couple of paragraphs.

We've had reams of people objecting to Sol's conclusions, and Sol has gotten ever more verbose in trying to refute these objections, leading to his getting somewhat snippy with TomDiehl, a couple of pages back.

Old Timer

Really?? I hadn't noticed. LOL [:D]

[art11758]

Actually that Gettysburg boiler explosion report was pretty interesting. I've followed this thread and learned a bit, despite what has transpired. Regardless of how railroading got here, we are dieselized. And it does not appear that it was as effortless as I thought.
Thank you to all who have contributed.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

It is amazing that this debate has been going on for 26 pages on this forum when the railroads setled the matter in the 40s and 50s. It took several more decades for the rest of the world,but they,too decided in favor of diesels(or in some cases electrics).Even China recently dieselized the last steam operated line in the world.I am sure there are still some pockets of steam left here and there,but for the most part steam has breathed its last. This is sad but true[:(].

You see Espee, the debate ISN'T what happened, or if steam is better or worse than diesel. It's to see if you can quote another obscure study that noone else has ever heard of, in an effort to prove that what happened, didn't happen, or shouldn't have happened.

Remember, everything you know is wrong.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NW_611
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.

OldtImer told you to start another thread, he certainly isn't going to answer your question, you only have to look through his mutliple posts here to find 1) zero factual information, 2) a repeating disdain for any statistical analysis whatsoever, and 3) a continuing series of name calling posts despite a warning from the forum moderator specifically about the behavior.

You have to wonder about people that don't like the topic of a thread, but insist on posting anyway, trying to get other people to stop talking about it. Not just a little odd, perhaps pathological. Where I grew up, If you don't like the conversation, simply butt out. Not this bunch. As 27 pages shows.

Your question was polite and reasonable.. And raises a good point that I think Brown specifically noted. During the period of the study, under conditions then existing on U.S. railways, multiple unit operation was no virtue except in limited circumstances. And those limited circumstances constituted a very small percentage of overall locomotive miles operated.

The point your question raises, did it really make sense to have to operate four or five separate diesel units in multiple unit operation to get the horsepower output of one Class A Steam engine?

You didn't gain anything in crew costs by ordinary multiple unit operation, but you did "gain", if that is the proper word, four or five highly complex machines operating in place of one relatively more simple machine.

Of course, that is the condundrum of economic service life as well. Those four or five highly complex machines will need complete tear down and overhaul between three and four times in order to achieve the economic service life of that big Class A steam engine.

The way I learned it, through an electrification analogy which applies here, you don't "replace" a powerful single unit locomotive with an economic service of 30 years with five equivalent horsepower locomotives with economic service lives of 8 years in road service. You replace a single unit locomotive with an economic service life of 30 years with the equivalent of 20 locomotives to obtain the power and economic service life of 30 years. It was an interesting way to look at it.

However, this short life/multiple unit concept is where the statistical data gets slippery. Under ICC rules then in effect, an overhaul that cost in excess of 50% of the purchase price was capitalized. Brown's study points to that problem in assessing repair costs for diesel-electric locomotives.

The "new" cost of a diesel engine (the engine, not the locomotive) is approximately half the cost of the overhaul of that same engine, because an asembly line can produce that engine much more efficiently than a shop doing the overhaul because at that point it is, essentially, custom work, losing all the efficiencies and economies of scale of an assembly line.

When this was factored in to the maintenance cost curves, the results were interesting. As I mentioned earlier, the cost per 1000 rail horsepower-miles of the average of Class I railways was about 23.5 cents at the age of 10 years for a Diesel-electric locomotive, and about 15.5 cents for a Steam engine of the same age. At the age of 20 years, the cost of maintenance per 1000 rail horsepower miles was nearly 40 cents for the Diesel, and 20 cents for the Steam locomotive.

Brown showed an average. Interestingly, the study also showed several individual railroads with substantially worse diesel maintenance costs, reaching as high as 44 cents for a ten year old diesel-electric locomotive. [p. 270].

I think those observations, which are drawn strictly from the published data, suggest how age significantly impacts complex machines more dramatically than relatively simple machines. That has little to do with the motive power type, just simply a reasonable result of aging and wear factors on thousands of moving or otherwise critical parts compared to the effect on far fewer, more robust moving parts.

However, and this is the crucial "however", if the data for overhaul costs is excluded -- treated as a capital expenditure and not as a repair cost -- then the diesel maintenance figures would look much, much better.

Either way, of course, there is the indisputable effect on ROI, which declined on American railways during this time. That is a fact of the rail industry than cannot be denied and is reasonably explained by the statistical data that shows that when all costs associated with Dieselization are included, they consumed a higher share of revenue than the motive power costs did prior to Dieselization.

Some claim that the statistical data shows, somehow, that "Brown is a loser.' It's an interesting phenomenon of this forum that people who don't even post here end up getting called names. Classy bunch.

That's simply an emotional reaction that has no reasonable rhyme or reason. If the data is "wrong" -- that is the ICC reports are in error -- it raises the question as to why they would be, or why the railroads would report something against their own self interest. Data is data.

On the other hand, If you were a rail executive who had staked a career on an expensive judgment call, which way would you portray it?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
[Steam engines require a ton of maintenance. It they could build a low maintenance steam engine that was profitable for the railroad (or any industry), I think they would have done that by now.

There seems to be little support in the historical record for that. Milwaukee Road figures show maintenance costs went up. Brown's study for all Class I railroads shows that maintenance costs went up.

If it is so "obvious" that maintenance costs went down, then why does there seem to be so much difficulty showing any numbers to support it? OldTimer and TomDiehl seem to be able to generate a lot of name-calling, but are unable to generate a factual analysis, despite the allegation of so many studies "by all the railroads" unanimously showing the contrary. If there are that many studies, they should be like wallpaper. Oddly, OldTimer and TomDiehl just seem to have misplaced their copies. When I misplaced mine, I grabbed some annual reports and did an analysis. They can't seem to do that either. What's the problem here?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, since WE'RE being criticized for this:

I'm sorry, I must have missed this, where was it that you posted the link to the Brown study?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
[Steam engines require a ton of maintenance. It they could build a low maintenance steam engine that was profitable for the railroad (or any industry), I think they would have done that by now.

There seems to be little support in the historical record for that. Milwaukee Road figures show maintenance costs went up. Brown's study for all Class I railroads shows that maintenance costs went up.

If it is so "obvious" that maintenance costs went down, then why does there seem to be so much difficulty showing any numbers to support it? OldTimer and TomDiehl seem to be able to generate a lot of name-calling, but are unable to generate a factual analysis, despite the allegation of so many studies "by all the railroads" unanimously showing the contrary. If there are that many studies, they should be like wallpaper. Oddly, OldTimer and TomDiehl just seem to have misplaced their copies. When I misplaced mine, I grabbed some annual reports and did an analysis. They can't seem to do that either. What's the problem here?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, since WE'RE being criticized for this:

I'm sorry, I must have missed this, where was it that you posted the link to the Brown study?

lol, GOOD ONE.