Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[MichaelSol]

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

This is the third time posting this information:

H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961).

For professionals, this is the standard citation method, and for professionals, they know where to find it and how to get it.

And they will understand what it says.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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

This is why this thread is now so long. This is the third time posting this information:

H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961).

For professionals, this is the standard citation method, and for professionals, they know where to find it and how to get it.

And they will understand what it says.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Sorry, tried clicking on that link but it doesn't work.

[MichaelSol]

I had a feeling that all professional studies of any type were "obscure" to you. Now we know why.

I guess professionals just don't publish on internet railfan sites.

Odd, isn't it?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

I had a feeling that all professional studies of any type were "obscure" to you. Now we know why.

I guess professionals just don't publish on internet railfan sites.

Odd, isn't it?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Obviously, "professionals" don't post anything, anywhere. I wonder why that is?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

I had a feeling that all professional studies of any type were "obscure" to you. Now we know why.

I guess professionals just don't publish on internet railfan sites.

Odd, isn't it?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Obviously, "professionals" don't post anything, anywhere. I wonder why that is?

Well, I do think it is time for this thread to die. You are bound and determined that there is not going to be a discussion of anything involving facts and figures that conflicts with your predisposed notions.

However, after wasting considerable time on this, I note the reasons why:

You represented to this thread that "every railroad engineering department" in the country did studies on Dieselization and they "all" came to the identical conclusions, and those conclusions directly contradicted H.F. Brown.

My first thought, on reading your astonishing claim, was that 1) you were pretty ambitious to go out and read every single study done by every railroad engineering department in the country to determine what they concluded, and 2) I wondered how you did that since most of those railroads have long since disappeared.

Odd as your claims seemed, I only asked you to provide one citation to one single study so we have something intelligent to discuss on the topic instead of your wild flights of fancy and your unsuccessful attempts to be clever.

And you could not provide one single citation to one single complete study anywhere.

My conclusion? Like your dishonest initial representation regarding the B&O study, which you pretended was your own statement until confronted with it, I think you have done the same thing again.

You have simply misrepresented, to everyone, what you know. You have not, in fact, ever read a single professional report by any railroad engineering department regarding the economic results of Dieselization. You have, in fact, no idea what any of them really say. You do not know, in fact, if there were any such studies actually done.

You have consistently misrepresented the facts of what you know and how you know it. You have flogged this argument far longer than it needed by a fraudulent representation of what all these alleged studies "say" when in fact you simply made it all up. Completely fabricated your arguments and pretended you knew all about these studies.. That was fundamentally dishonest.

You have never read a single one.

Thanks for the waste of time.

-- Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

I had a feeling that all professional studies of any type were "obscure" to you. Now we know why.

I guess professionals just don't publish on internet railfan sites.

Odd, isn't it?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Obviously, "professionals" don't post anything, anywhere. I wonder why that is?

Well, I do think it is time for this thread to die. You are bound and determined that there is not going to be a discussion of anything involving facts and figures that conflicts with your predisposed notions.

However, after wasting considerable time on this, I note the reasons why:

You represented to this thread that "every railroad engineering department" in the country did studies on Dieselization and they "all" came to the identical conclusions, and those conclusions directly contradicted H.F. Brown.

My first thought, on reading your astonishing claim, was that 1) you were pretty ambitious to go out and read every single study done by every railroad engineering department in the country to determine what they concluded, and 2) I wondered how you did that since most of those railroads have long since disappeared.

Odd as your claims seemed, I only asked you to provide one citation to one single study so we have something intelligent to discuss on the topic instead of your wild flights of fancy and your unsuccessful attempts to be clever.

And you could not provide one single citation to one single complete study anywhere.

My conclusion? Like your dishonest initial representation regarding the B&O study, which you pretended was your own statement until confronted with it, I think you have done the same thing again.

You have simply misrepresented, to everyone, what you know. You have not, in fact, ever read a single professional report by any railroad engineering department regarding the economic results of Dieselization. You have, in fact, no idea what any of them really say. You do not know, in fact, if there were any such studies actually done.

You have consistently misrepresented the facts of what you know and how you know it. You have flogged this argument far longer than it needed by a fraudulent representation of what all these alleged studies "say" when in fact you simply made it all up.

You have never read a single one.

Thanks for the waste of time.

-- Michael Sol

You're welcome.

And thanks for wasting our time referring to a report that only YOU seem to know exists.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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

This is why this thread is now so long. This is the third time posting this information:

H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961).

For professionals, this is the standard citation method, and for professionals, they know where to find it and how to get it.

And they will understand what it says.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Sorry, tried clicking on that link but it doesn't work.

That's because it's not a link, it's an underline. It is customary to underline, or italicize, titles of books or proceedings when publishing bibliographic references. Why don't you try google or maybe go to a local university library. Most old journal articles are not yet available online. It takes a lot of work to scan all that stuff in. I searched on Penn State's library page, and their copies of Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers for volumes older than 1969 are in the library annex and not in the stacks, so it will be hard to get to that volume. It looks like modern volumes of Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have been split into more than a dozen parts. Part F is dedicated to rail and rapid transit publications.

Now fight nice, folks. If there's one thing I learned from Monty Python it's...
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller
If there's one thing I learned from Monty Python it's...
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

No, it isn't![:p]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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

This is why this thread is now so long. This is the third time posting this information:

H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961).

For professionals, this is the standard citation method, and for professionals, they know where to find it and how to get it.

And they will understand what it says.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Sorry, tried clicking on that link but it doesn't work.

That's because it's not a link, it's an underline.

Sorry, I couldn't find the "sarcasm" smilie.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller
If there's one thing I learned from Monty Python it's...
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

No, it isn't![:p]

I'm sorry, but this is 'hitting yourself on the head' lessons.[:o)][:p][;)]
[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

I had a feeling that all professional studies of any type were "obscure" to you. Now we know why.

I guess professionals just don't publish on internet railfan sites.

Odd, isn't it?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Obviously, "professionals" don't post anything, anywhere. I wonder why that is?

Well, I do think it is time for this thread to die. You are bound and determined that there is not going to be a discussion of anything involving facts and figures that conflicts with your predisposed notions.

-- Michael Sol

And you are bound and determined to keep referring to an obscure study that you know noone on this forum has even heard of and you're treating it as gospel. Then when someone disagrees with you, you immediately look down your nose at them and tell them how stupid they must be since they don't have this supposed study. Whether this "study" even contains any of these facts and figures is completely your interpretation.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller
If there's one thing I learned from Monty Python it's...
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

No, it isn't![:p]

Yes it is!

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller
If there's one thing I learned from Monty Python it's...
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

No, it isn't![:p]

I'm sorry, but this is 'hitting yourself on the head' lessons.[:o)][:p][;)]
[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert! [xx(]
[;)]

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
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

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

I know not of this "Great Montana Wheat War" But wait, let me take a wild stab in the dark as to what it is all about. Did someone make an assertion about a topic on page one and then devote the other 25 pages to a pissing match? If so, I can't hardly wait to read it. Unfortunately, there are only 24 hours in a day. [V]

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
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?

Let's try this differently. Instead of producing studies, reports, speculation, dreams, or yes even fantasy, how about this. Could it be that railroads realized the potential to maximize profit by minimizing maintenance? A term for that might be capitalism. SO what if EMD/GE sexed up diesel studies to sell their product. Companies have been doing that for years. A smart person knows his industry and will see through the B.S.
Again, I am not employed in the area of railroading, but a few common sense guidlines can be spread to any job. And if those guys can't find those reports lying around they should all be commended. If I had stuff like that filling up vacant space in my house I would really need to find another calling in life.

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
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.

Again, if you have a passion for reports check out the OSHA incident reports regarding steam fatalities. And steam boilers are no longer used to heat office buildings (they are too dangerous). Modern heating systems are based on a hot water system (similar to hydronic heat). Also-they said that all those modern electronic and mechanical controls would keep the TITANIC from sinking, but I don't think that quite did the trick. The only fool is the fool who relies on mechanical and electrical safety devices. Both are prone to failure. I have seen both fail.

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.

Actually I was trying to get back to the basic topic of this thread. That was steam vs. diesel, if I remember correctly. I was trying to point out the benefits of an electrical motor as oppsed to a steam engine. I don't have facts or reports to back this up. Just experience.

[solzrules]

I think one of my posts was screwed up. Please chalk that up to being a rookie![#oops]

[ajmiller]

You can edit your own posts after you've posted them. Each of your posts has an edit button on it.

[solzrules]

AHHHH.. Sweet. Modern technology.......[8D]

[Anonymous]

Michael Sol - as I said before, neither TomDiehl nor myself has to produce anything to refute the specious arguments you've put forth at great length.

HISTORY has already done it for us.

Now, you obviously consider yourself as a person of superior intelligence; you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a, well, substandard intellect. Your problem lies in the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between your perceived level of intelligence and your actual level. If your actual level of intelligence was up to the level of your perception of it, you'd have been able to realize that HISTORY has proven you and Mr. Brown as wrong as you can be, and you'd further realize that you've wasted about 25 of the pages of this thread.

Old Timer

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Michael Sol - as I said before, neither TomDiehl nor myself has to produce anything to refute the specious arguments you've put forth at great length.

HISTORY has already done it for us.

Now, you obviously consider yourself as a person of superior intelligence; you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a, well, substandard intellect. Your problem lies in the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between your perceived level of intelligence and your actual level. If your actual level of intelligence was up to the level of your perception of it, you'd have been able to realize that HISTORY has proven you and Mr. Brown as wrong as you can be, and you'd further realize that you've wasted about 25 of the pages of this thread.

Old Timer

You must be right. HISTORY shows your every word to be true. The ICC statistics are all wrong. Railroad ROI actually went up. Railroad maintenance investment went up because of the great savings in motive power costs. Profits surged. Railroads entered an era of great prosperity in the 1960s. Train speeds increased, derailments declined. By the 1970s, it was an absolute railroad paradise. No railroads were in receivership. More passenger trains were added. New employees were being hired on in droves. None of that could have happened without the substantial benefits resulting from Dieselization.

H.F. Brown was certainly proven wrong by HISTORY.

When's the book come out?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Michael Sol - as I said before, neither TomDiehl nor myself has to produce anything to refute the specious arguments you've put forth at great length.

HISTORY has already done it for us.

Now, you obviously consider yourself as a person of superior intelligence; you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a, well, substandard intellect. Your problem lies in the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between your perceived level of intelligence and your actual level. If your actual level of intelligence was up to the level of your perception of it, you'd have been able to realize that HISTORY has proven you and Mr. Brown as wrong as you can be, and you'd further realize that you've wasted about 25 of the pages of this thread.

Old Timer

Well Old Timer, whoever you are, here's a question for ya. Has history proven that 4'-8.5" track gauge track is better than 6' broad gauge track? I guess it must be since that's what all the major north american railroads use today.

Was VHS better than Beta? Is the PC better than the Mac? Is the Space Shuttle better than Apollo? Are Interstate highways better than trains? I guess they must be, 'cause that's what history gave us.

I don't know if a modern steam engine could be viable or not. But I have to believe that the major part of the decision to abandon steam in favor of diesel was the perception on the part of railroad managers that diesels would cost less than steam. Sol is trying to point out, using real data, that assumed savings were not realized during the time the data was gathered.

My point is, is that the best technology doesn't always win. What we're left with from history is not the end result of the best decisions (from our point of view) being made at every point in the past. I am not implying that steam is better than diesel, but it is not irrational to discuss the the possibilities.

And get off this business about wasting 25 pages of the thread! It's just a few kilobytes in a database somewhere! Whether he's right or wrong, Mr. Sol's posts are well written and express a clear point of view. If you're really so concerned about using up Trains.com's disk space, go complain about the diner thread. They've got nearly 600 pages of pointless drivel over there.

[selector]

Fellas, really, hasn't it all been said? No one will accept a declaration that one side or the other in this debacle...er, I mean debate... has come out ahead. The smell of urine is overpowering. We are now stuck on intransigence.

Let us, please, return to other topics and try to get along like colleagues who are interested in railroads.

It's about time we put this one to bed.

[daveklepper]

A sense of humor or irony does help at times.

[bigfoote]

I like them both.Thats why I model the 50's in N-Scale. I was woundering, how a steam train pulling 12 cars with a diesel helper go the same speed, are they throttled together, or do they use radios?

[Anonymous]

Even if taken at face value, Browns study is after the fact while business decisions are based on assumptions about the future, without benefit of a crystal ball.

Can anyone predict what interest rates, inflation, and the price of oil will be 10 years from now? Should a fleet taxi or truck operator invest in hybrid technology, wait for hydrogen, or keep buying conventional gas/diesel? Keep in mind that during Bush I, economic growth was spotty, inflation and interest rates were moderate, we had huge deficits and oil was $30/barrel. Conventional wisdom at the time was that things weren't likely to change anytime soon. During the 90s, we had great growth, low inflation and interest rates, the elimination of the deficit, and $13-$18 oil.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Michael Sol - as I said before, neither TomDiehl nor myself has to produce anything to refute the specious arguments you've put forth at great length.

HISTORY has already done it for us.

Now, you obviously consider yourself as a person of superior intelligence; you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a, well, substandard intellect. Your problem lies in the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between your perceived level of intelligence and your actual level. If your actual level of intelligence was up to the level of your perception of it, you'd have been able to realize that HISTORY has proven you and Mr. Brown as wrong as you can be, and you'd further realize that you've wasted about 25 of the pages of this thread.

Old Timer

You must be right. HISTORY shows your every word to be true. The ICC statistics are all wrong. Railroad ROI actually went up. Railroad maintenance investment went up because of the great savings in motive power costs. Profits surged. Railroads entered an era of great prosperity in the 1960s. Train speeds increased, derailments declined. By the 1970s, it was an absolute railroad paradise. No railroads were in receivership. More passenger trains were added. New employees were being hired on in droves. None of that could have happened without the substantial benefits resulting from Dieselization.

H.F. Brown was certainly proven wrong by HISTORY.

When's the book come out?

Best regards, Michael Sol

Considering that the Brown report was dated 1961, it's more like Monday morning quarterbacking.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bigfoote

I like them both.Thats why I model the 50's in N-Scale. I was woundering, how a steam train pulling 12 cars with a diesel helper go the same speed, are they throttled together, or do they use radios?

Back in the 50's radio use on the railroads was in its infancy. The best known was the Pennsy's Trainfone system, probably because of the large antennas found on the locomotives and cabooses that looked like a low handrail. This was purely a voice communication system, radio controlled pushers came MUCH later. Helper systems like you describe were completely under manual control from the individual loco cabs on both ends of the train. Whistle/horn signals were used to communicate. Of course, the experience of the engineers made a BIG difference in train handling.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Michael Sol - as I said before, neither TomDiehl nor myself has to produce anything to refute the specious arguments you've put forth at great length.

HISTORY has already done it for us.

Now, you obviously consider yourself as a person of superior intelligence; you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a, well, substandard intellect. Your problem lies in the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between your perceived level of intelligence and your actual level. If your actual level of intelligence was up to the level of your perception of it, you'd have been able to realize that HISTORY has proven you and Mr. Brown as wrong as you can be, and you'd further realize that you've wasted about 25 of the pages of this thread.

Old Timer

I have to agree with you on the point that Michael's snobbish attitude comes through QUITE clearly in many of his posts, and the two of us aren't the only ones to point out that fact, even in this thread.

However, I've found this topic to be a potentially interesting subject, but the questions and answers were in a very random order, adding to the confusion, and by some of the posts, I can safely say, I wasn't the only one confused.

I'd like to recommend to Michael that he write a summary evaluation (if that's the proper term) of the Brown report, and if possible, include the update he was invloved in, I believe he said in the 70's, and submit it to Trains or Railfan Magazine for publication.

[nanaimo73]

MichaelSol-
Does Brown say the railroads should have dieselized, but just in a different manner ?
You have posted on this thread that switchers had different economics, and they should have been replaced first. What does Brown say about all of the road steam power that was worn out at the end of WW2 ? (Like CMSP&P's slobber-stacks ?). Does he say they should have been replaced post war with newer steam (like 4-8-4s) or diesels ? Did he have different findings on post-war freight or passenger locomotives ?