QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb So evidently shipyards were just as successful as the diesel builders in convincing the maritime industry to make a wholesale switch from steam to diesel. This is not just a case of smoke and mirrors by the EMD salesmen. I remember several years ago the american coal industry talked of sponsering a new steam engine. It was to be a steam electric but we are still waiting for a protoype. It never got any further than drawings. If the coal industry can find a way to get what was historically one of there best customers(railroads) back then they will. They are working on it but the technoligy still needs more development. [2c]
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: However, when all those SD-40-2s began to arrive to replace the Electrification, things did indeed go downhill from there, as you may have noticed. Michael- They had to purchase some of those SD40-2s for the Dakota coal trains. It would seem to me buying more SD40-2s would cost a lot less than rebuilding the Coast Division Electrification, including replacing the Freight Motors. Would the 12 Joes have been able to handle the RMD ?
QUOTE: However, when all those SD-40-2s began to arrive to replace the Electrification, things did indeed go downhill from there, as you may have noticed.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Some years ago I was privileged to have several lengthy conversations with Vernon L. Smith, author of the autobiographical book "One Man's Locomotives" and a diesel series in TRAINS called "The Diesel from D to L". Smith worked for the Franklin company and was field engineer on several projects, including the Burlington's PV 4-8-4, and the PRR T1s. He was a poppet valve booster; his claim was that while the T1 got a bad reputation for slipperiness, during its service life it came and went and took what it stood for with a lot more aplomb than its reputation. My own feeling that, in the hands of a capable engineer, the T1 would do what its designers intended. But it must be understood, that the T1 was intended to replace doubleheaded K4 Pacifics on the west end of the railroad, and engine crews have never taken kindly to that sort of thing, not only on Pennsy but elsewhere. I feel that there were some engineers who didn't want the T1 to do well, and saw to it that it didn't.
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by klahm I don't see evidence that, in today's world, steam would necessarily be a superior technology. Yet it seems that some commenters impute that argument to Michael's posts. A theoretical potential for steam propulsion efficiency is advanced, with reference to the electric power generating industry, but no evidence of successful transfer to even a prototype railroad locomotive is cited. A comparison not raised is to marine propulsion. Steam was replaced by diesel in marine service, over a longer period of time. Marine service doesn't involve the complications of fuel and water replenishment inherent in railroad service, yet steam is not used as the motive power in modern ships. Try to look at it this way: When we're talking about steam vs diesel today, we're really talking about coal vs oil. The price differential between coal and oil has only widened these last few years, while rail and marine propulsion applications are well grounded in diesel technology. If the price differential continues to widen, there certainly comes a point where even "classic" steam propulsion will be cheaper to operate than diesel electric. We may even be at that point now. The thing is, as that price differential widens (or at least stays wide), the prefered method of utilizing coal may be more cost effective via coal liquefication, which makes it compatible to the current compression ignition and tank storage/pipeline delivery infrastructure. On the other hand, synthetic coal processes that remove most of the moisture, ash, and metals from raw coal would make it ideal for classic steam technology, and there is no reason to believe a technically advanced steam propulsion system wouldn't be the most cost effective way of utilizing this synthetic coal as the prefered fuelstock. If it's the latter, it will more likely come in the maritime applications before it's adapted by railroads. Many of the comments on this thread are based on the idea of current or future cheap coal, which is not true. The cost of coal is increasing, and if in fact, we switched from our current mix of oil based fuels to an all coal economy, you would see coal prices go through the roof. Coal is not a renewable resource, and when an area is mined out, that coal is gone forever. The last time I looked, the laws of supply and demand still apply, even to those who feel the need to rewrite history. Oh, by the way, please don't let economics stand in the way of this thread proceeding. For those of us who actually work in the industry, and know the true cost of such things, we find railfan's ideas on steam most amusing. Makes for good holiday entertainment...
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by klahm I don't see evidence that, in today's world, steam would necessarily be a superior technology. Yet it seems that some commenters impute that argument to Michael's posts. A theoretical potential for steam propulsion efficiency is advanced, with reference to the electric power generating industry, but no evidence of successful transfer to even a prototype railroad locomotive is cited. A comparison not raised is to marine propulsion. Steam was replaced by diesel in marine service, over a longer period of time. Marine service doesn't involve the complications of fuel and water replenishment inherent in railroad service, yet steam is not used as the motive power in modern ships. Try to look at it this way: When we're talking about steam vs diesel today, we're really talking about coal vs oil. The price differential between coal and oil has only widened these last few years, while rail and marine propulsion applications are well grounded in diesel technology. If the price differential continues to widen, there certainly comes a point where even "classic" steam propulsion will be cheaper to operate than diesel electric. We may even be at that point now. The thing is, as that price differential widens (or at least stays wide), the prefered method of utilizing coal may be more cost effective via coal liquefication, which makes it compatible to the current compression ignition and tank storage/pipeline delivery infrastructure. On the other hand, synthetic coal processes that remove most of the moisture, ash, and metals from raw coal would make it ideal for classic steam technology, and there is no reason to believe a technically advanced steam propulsion system wouldn't be the most cost effective way of utilizing this synthetic coal as the prefered fuelstock. If it's the latter, it will more likely come in the maritime applications before it's adapted by railroads.
QUOTE: Originally posted by klahm I don't see evidence that, in today's world, steam would necessarily be a superior technology. Yet it seems that some commenters impute that argument to Michael's posts. A theoretical potential for steam propulsion efficiency is advanced, with reference to the electric power generating industry, but no evidence of successful transfer to even a prototype railroad locomotive is cited. A comparison not raised is to marine propulsion. Steam was replaced by diesel in marine service, over a longer period of time. Marine service doesn't involve the complications of fuel and water replenishment inherent in railroad service, yet steam is not used as the motive power in modern ships.
QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan Remember, Steam engines do not need to be fueled by Coal, you could theroretically build a steam engine that is electrically heated and use a small deisel egine to generate that electricity. In fact, A steam locomotive can and will run off almost any type of fuel you want.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr Maybe I will ask Santa for a Milwaukee history when he shows up tonight.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Well, Milwaukee of course had an electrification that had been substantially upgraded during this time, a system that demonstrably was better than either diesel or steam, and that surely assisted its bottom line in a way that full dieselization would not have. "Surely assisted"? Surprising phrase from you, Mr. Sol -- a self-styled numbers man who criticized someone else here for using the phrase, "it's safe to say." The electrification was only one part of an enormous system. One small fraction of a much larger system, which, in fact, was NOT heavily used in those years (what, a few freights and one pax train per day?). Did the electrification save the Milwaukee from the alleged dieselization financing fiasco that Mr Sol claims struck other railroads, and that caused their rates of return on investment to drop? Well it's theory compounding theory, and more part of a brain-storming exercise to me than anything resembling serious academic discussion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Well, Milwaukee of course had an electrification that had been substantially upgraded during this time, a system that demonstrably was better than either diesel or steam, and that surely assisted its bottom line in a way that full dieselization would not have.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Well, Milwaukee of course had an electrification that had been substantially upgraded during this time, a system that demonstrably was better than either diesel or steam, and that surely affected its bottom line in a way that full dieselization would not have. But wasn't the Electrication carrying only a small part of the CMSP&P's traffic ? Less than 5% ?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Well, Milwaukee of course had an electrification that had been substantially upgraded during this time, a system that demonstrably was better than either diesel or steam, and that surely affected its bottom line in a way that full dieselization would not have.
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr Well, the Milwaukee's rate of return was NOT following the national average. In 1946 it was 2%. In 1960, it was 2%. Over the period of dieselization, it did NOT change. So there was no correlation between dieselization and falling return on property investment for the Milwaukee Road. Mr. Sol, your theory is too problematic for me. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, Mr. Sol.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Michael Sol The nice thing about looking at combined results from all railroads is that individual policy idiosyncracies and financial circumstances average themselves out and the results can be more easily assessed as "true" results.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Sayeth MichaelSol: "It is, on its face, a completely false assertion to state that dieselization had anything to do with an employment productivity gains whatsover, since the identical improvement would have happened with retaining Steam -- even with no actual productivity increases at all!" This is an interesting assertion. Please prove it by some other means than trying to discredit those who disagree with you. Old Timer
QUOTE: posted by Michael Sol: The smallest decrease in railroad employment, 1947-1972, of all classes of railroad employment, was the engine crews. That is, engine crews were the single least improved of all classes of railroad employment categories. Indeed, crews decreased by a percentage fairly closely resembling the drop in carloadings over the same period. Engine crew employment decreased by 48%, carloadings handled decreased by 43%. It is arguable that it might have been no different, under steam, with the lower carloadings with consolidation of trains. The crew number decrease compares highly unfavorably to the between 84% and 95% improvement in virtually all other categories of railroad employment over the same time period. At the margin, the "improvement" in crew employment as a result of dieselization was remarkably small, tiny, considering the similar decrease in traffic, and this slight decrease was substantially lower than the productivity improvements in all other areas of railroad employment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.