Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[Of course this begs the question, "how did they count diesel locomotives?" When the railroads got the first road diesels, they were drawbar connected into semipermanent sets, which, for reasons of taxes and Union contracts (plus others, I'm sure), were counted as a single locomotive. The idea of removing the drawbars and installing standard couplers wasn't brought into the mix until later, when they realized the versatility of being able to mix and match.

From an engineering perspective, how they are connected wasn't relevant during the study period. However, because of the practice of GM to call any number of units lashed together in any fashion a "locomotive" for public relations purposes, the Brown study clearly distinguishes the basic "unit" of motive power from the GM terminology.

Best regards, Michael Sol

The "fashion" carried through to many operating departments due to the provisions in their union contracts which required one locomotive = one locomotive crew. If each section (as they were called at the time) would have been considered a separate locomotive, an A-B-B-A set for the FT's would require four locomotive crews.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[The "fashion" carried through to many operating departments due to the provisions in their union contracts which required one locomotive = one locomotive crew. If each section (as they were called at the time) would have been considered a separate locomotive, an A-B-B-A set for the FT's would require four locomotive crews.

And union contracts also prevented the railroads from realizing one of the biggest potential benefits from Dieselization: abolishing the fireman, the most contentious labor issue of the time.

Some felt that unions were determined to wreck the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[The "fashion" carried through to many operating departments due to the provisions in their union contracts which required one locomotive = one locomotive crew. If each section (as they were called at the time) would have been considered a separate locomotive, an A-B-B-A set for the FT's would require four locomotive crews.

And union contracts also prevented the railroads from realizing one of the biggest potential benefits from Dieselization: abolishing the fireman, the most contentious labor issue of the time.

Some felt that unions were determined to wreck the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable with a single person isolated in the cab while I'm riding the train. Who knows what can happen. Although "Fireman" may be the traditional name for the job, for simple safety, there needs to be more than one person up there.

I know they'd never go for flying a B747 with only the pilot in the cockpit.

Unfortunately, it was industry that established the "us vs. them" mentality that caused the formation unions in the first place.I guess that's what the old saying means: "You reap what you sow."

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

[vsmith]

lets round this up to 600 replies


this is #600

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

That's only 82 of the "B" units as opposed to 428 of the "A" units.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.
Best regards, Michael Sol

That's only 82 of the "B" units as opposed to 428 of the "A" units.

The proposition supposes that a general purpose Diesel was somehow more economically useful than a specialty steam engine because of the example cited.

The proposition did not go so far as to suggest that 428 such A units were ever purchased to be used in such odd circumstances, nor that the unusual circumstance somehow offers a counter-explanation to the inflexibility of 82 B units.

By now, the literally hundreds of models of Diesel locomotives, designed up, down, back and forth around various concepts of flexibility contrasted to more efficient design-specific tasks, suggests that a single example utilizing mixed locomotive metaphors is neither useful nor an explanation of why railroads had to suffer a 50% decline in ROI so that an E7A could pinch-hit somewhere.

It does, however, raise the question as to whether railroads actually did make their transition decision based upon what had to have been a circumstance comprising less than one-one hundredth of one per cent of all locomotive miles operated on Class I railways at the time.

I don't think they did.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[The "fashion" carried through to many operating departments due to the provisions in their union contracts which required one locomotive = one locomotive crew. If each section (as they were called at the time) would have been considered a separate locomotive, an A-B-B-A set for the FT's would require four locomotive crews.

And union contracts also prevented the railroads from realizing one of the biggest potential benefits from Dieselization: abolishing the fireman, the most contentious labor issue of the time.

Some felt that unions were determined to wreck the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable with a single person isolated in the cab while I'm riding the train. Who knows what can happen. Although "Fireman" may be the traditional name for the job, for simple safety, there needs to be more than one person up there.

I know they'd never go for flying a B747 with only the pilot in the cockpit.

Unfortunately, it was industry that established the "us vs. them" mentality that caused the formation unions in the first place.I guess that's what the old saying means: "You reap what you sow."

Two comments:

You should probably stay off Amtrak or commuter trains. They are all one man in the cab.

The fireman was the 3rd man in the cab in many, many places. The Engr would also be accompanied by the headend brakeman - except when he was out walking along the top of the train tieing down the handbrakes. [:D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.
Best regards, Michael Sol

That's only 82 of the "B" units as opposed to 428 of the "A" units.

The proposition supposes that a general purpose Diesel was somehow more economically useful than a specialty steam engine because of the example cited.

The proposition did not go so far as to suggest that 428 such A units were ever purchased to be used in such odd circumstances, nor that the unusual circumstance somehow offers a counter-explanation to the inflexibility of 82 B units.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Of course, that would depend on the difference between the terms "economically useful" and "versitile."

By the time of the introduction of the E7 series, the changes in operating rules had encouraged EMD to advertise the MU concept, or "building block" idea of putting a locomotive together to handle the load, or taking them apart and using them separately in circumstances requiring lower horsepower.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.
Best regards, Michael Sol

That's only 82 of the "B" units as opposed to 428 of the "A" units.

By now, the literally hundreds of models of Diesel locomotives, designed up, down, back and forth around various concepts of flexibility contrasted to more efficient design-specific tasks, suggests that a single example utilizing mixed locomotive metaphors is neither useful nor an explanation of why railroads had to suffer a 50% decline in ROI so that an E7A could pinch-hit somewhere.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Also known as product development or evolution. The history of the steam locomotive is full of the same kind of stories. Even the different models underwent continuous upgrades and improvements during the course of their lives. And this can cause historians to have some "heated discussions" when trying to decide what point in its life to restore a historic item. I've been involved in several.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

If Sol's criteria for "least flexible" is a unit without a cab, then the Miwaukee boxcab center units would have won that prize, being restricted to electrified mainline track and yards, and being rigidly coupled to their sisters. Talk about limited in usability, unlike a diesel "B" unit, which could travel any track.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

If Sol's criteria for "least flexible" is a unit without a cab, then the Miwaukee boxcab center units would have won that prize, being restricted to electrified mainline track and yards, and being rigidly coupled to their sisters. Talk about limited in usability, unlike a diesel "B" unit, which could travel any track.

Oh, I suppose I'm vaguely acquainted with them. There were no financing charges associated with them; they were long past their original estimated economic service life when they were created from former cab units. Very little cost associated with the conversion, put all the weight on the drivers. Cost about one-third the maintenance cost of any Diesel A or B unit, and cost about half to operate. Like a UP Centennial, Northern or any other big power, their usefulness to the railroad was in their specialty, not some vague, general purpose pinch-hit capability.

They were specifically designed to be part of a powerful mainline locomotive operating in mountain territories.

The strong point of the four unit Boxcab Electric after rebuilding was their output of nearly 6,800 horsepower and 162,000 lbs of tractive effort on a continuous basis, 212,000 lbs of tractive effort on an hourly basis (8200 hp), and a whopping 20,000 horsepower for brief periods. Ironically, 40 years after their manufacture, they had again become the most powerful locomotives in the world and one of the cheapest to operate.

Can't beat that kind of "flexibility:" it's the kind that makes the railroad money.

I spent a goodly number of hours with their designer, L.W. Wylie.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Michael Sol:

What is your word count in this thread?

Don't you think you've expended an awful lot of effort not to have proven any more than you have?

Couldn't your time have been spent more productively?

Old Timer

[ValleyX]

You know, I don't want to sound like a smart alec but I suppose that I will but Michael, tell us, you're a retired eccentric, aren't you? Sorry but you've got all this time to post and these long posts packed with statistics, opinion, points, and rebuttals.

[daveklepper]

The road-switcher did prove far more flexible than either the cab units it replaced or the steam locomotives. I mentioned the crew and the GP-7 that regularly took a multistop passenger train (4pm departure) from Boston's North Station to Portsmouth, NH, yarded the train, then picked up approximatley 50 freight cars and returned to Sommerville Yard by around 2AM. switching one or two sidings en route. To get the same performance from steam, it had required a double headed 2-6-0 round trip or a 4-6-2 to Portsmouth and a 2-8-0 or 2-8-2 to return with the 4-6-2 returning on a morning passenger.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

If Sol's criteria for "least flexible" is a unit without a cab, then the Miwaukee boxcab center units would have won that prize, being restricted to electrified mainline track and yards, and being rigidly coupled to their sisters. Talk about limited in usability, unlike a diesel "B" unit, which could travel any track.

Very little cost associated with the conversion, put all the weight on the drivers. Cost about one-third the maintenance cost of any Diesel A or B unit, and cost about half to operate. Like a UP Centennial, Northern or any other big power, their usefulness to the railroad was in their specialty, not some vague, general purpose pinch-hit capability.

They were specifically designed to be part of a powerful mainline locomotive operating in mountain territories.

The strong point of the four unit Boxcab Electric after rebuilding was their output of nearly 6,800 horsepower and 162,000 lbs of tractive effort on a continuous basis, 212,000 lbs of tractive effort on an hourly basis (8200 hp), and a whopping 20,000 horsepower for brief periods. Ironically, 40 years after their manufacture, they had again become the most powerful locomotives in the world and one of the cheapest to operate.

Can't beat that kind of "flexibility:" it's the kind that makes the railroad money.

I spent a goodly number of hours with their designer, L.W. Wylie.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I am delighted you got to meet the designer of the 1915 Boxcab electrics. That would make you very old, wouldn't it?

One thing you say (parroting Brown), is that pilot trucks are a waste because they take weight off the drivers that could be used to improve the locomotives tractive effort. That's horsehockey. The pilot trucks aren't weight-bearing. With or without them, the weight on the driving wheels is the same.

And I noticed you changed your criteria in evaluating locomotive "flexibility". You originally stated that "B" unit boosters were "inflexible" because they had to be tied to a cab unit. Then, when I pointed out the same situation in electrics, you changed your tune and said the B units there were actually integral parts of a single electric locomotive. It's just more of the usual twisting of facts and definitions.

[Anonymous]

Woops. I'll be the first to admit a mistake. Pilot trucks did in cases apparently have some load-bearing function, as well as their main function, which was to guide ("pilot") the locomotive into a curve.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr
I am delighted you got to meet the designer of the 1915 Boxcab electrics. That would make you very old, wouldn't it?

One thing you say (parroting Brown), is that pilot trucks are a waste because they take weight off the drivers that could be used to improve the locomotives tractive effort. That's horsehockey. The pilot trucks aren't weight-bearing. With or without them, the weight on the driving wheels is the same.

And I noticed you changed your criteria in evaluating locomotive "flexibility". You originally stated that "B" unit boosters were "inflexible" because they had to be tied to a cab unit. Then, when I pointed out the same situation in electrics, you changed your tune and said the B units there were actually integral parts of a single electric locomotive. It's just more of the usual twisting of facts and definitions.

Well, a lot of hostility there for some reason. Settle down.

The "designer" remark was to the booster unit boxcabs. Those were not designed by GE. While Milwaukee tried a couple of them (designs) under Reinier Bueewkes, Bueewkes believed that the 80 volt DC control voltage was not sufficient to operate four units linked together. He had other reasons as well. Wylie "redesigned" the Boxcabs so that several cab units were essentially rebuilt, losing their cabs and idler trucks, putting the entire weight of the unit on the driving wheels, removing their pantographs, and permanently wiring them to the cab units. In this sense, they were integral parts of the locomotive as they could not access power directly from the trolley.

In this they were totally unlike the "B" unit of a Diesel locomotive. Further, they did not cost anything like the B unit of a Diesel locomotive. Further they operated at a substantial reduction on overall operating and repair costs compared to the B unit of a Diesel Locomotive. A B unit of a Diesel locomotive is not "flexible" for anything. It has no cab. Indeed, the arguments in favor of their alleged "flexibility" were so weak, they fell out of favor entirely and manufacturing ceased.

Finally, the C & D Boxcab units were functionally useful for a period approxmately 40 years longer than a B unit Diesel.

If there is an economic argument to be made, I am not sure what is actually operating in favor of the B unit Diesel. And, because of the electrical supply and permanent coupling, the Boxcab "boosters" were in fact integral units with the cabs. Perhaps it needs to be stated more clearly: no one advertised the Boxcab rebuilding program as designed a superior, more flexible, "booster" unit. This is in contrast to the advertising claims for the Diesel B unit. The Boxcab rebuilding was not intended to offer a separate unit for any reason. The Diesel B program obviously did. The only twisting of facts or definitions comes from trying to take two clearly quite separate ideas and saying they are somehow comparable even though no one intended them to be, they were never designed to be, and until now, no one at GE, GM, Milwaukee Road, or anywhere else, had ever claimed they were.

Wylie was, in fact, the "designer" of the four unit Boxcabs used on the Milwaukee Road, and that is the specific reference that I made above.

As to "parroting" H.F. Brown, Brown, to my recollection, said nothing about idler trucks, on Milwaukee Road Boxcabs or anywhere else.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Wylie "redesigned" the Boxcabs so that several cab units were essentially rebuilt, losing their cabs and idler trucks, putting the entire weight of the unit on the driving wheels, removing their pantographs, and permanently wiring them to the cab units. In this sense, they were integral parts of the locomotive as they could not access power directly from the trolley.

The 12 "bobtails" were built (rebuilt) between 1936 and 1939. This lowered weight by 15,000 pounds and increased tractive effort by 2,500 pounds.
Wasn't that before Mr. Wylie ?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Wylie "redesigned" the Boxcabs so that several cab units were essentially rebuilt, losing their cabs and idler trucks, putting the entire weight of the unit on the driving wheels, removing their pantographs, and permanently wiring them to the cab units. In this sense, they were integral parts of the locomotive as they could not access power directly from the trolley.

The 12 "bobtails" were built (rebuilt) between 1936 and 1939. This lowered weight by 15,000 pounds and increased tractive effort by 2,500 pounds.
Wasn't that before Mr. Wylie ?

A limited number of three units sets were created under Reinier Bueewkes. He did not believe four units sets were feasible.

L.W. Wylie first joined the Electrification Dept in 1917, but went down the hall (literally, in the Stewart-Henry-White bldg) to the operating department in the early 1920s.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

If Sol's criteria for "least flexible" is a unit without a cab, then the Miwaukee boxcab center units would have won that prize, being restricted to electrified mainline track and yards, and being rigidly coupled to their sisters. Talk about limited in usability, unlike a diesel "B" unit, which could travel any track.

Oh, I suppose I'm vaguely acquainted with them. There were no financing charges associated with them; they were long past their original estimated economic service life when they were created from former cab units. Very little cost associated with the conversion, put all the weight on the drivers. Cost about one-third the maintenance cost of any Diesel A or B unit, and cost about half to operate. Like a UP Centennial, Northern or any other big power, their usefulness to the railroad was in their specialty, not some vague, general purpose pinch-hit capability.

They were specifically designed to be part of a powerful mainline locomotive operating in mountain territories.

The strong point of the four unit Boxcab Electric after rebuilding was their output of nearly 6,800 horsepower and 162,000 lbs of tractive effort on a continuous basis, 212,000 lbs of tractive effort on an hourly basis (8200 hp), and a whopping 20,000 horsepower for brief periods. Ironically, 40 years after their manufacture, they had again become the most powerful locomotives in the world and one of the cheapest to operate.

Can't beat that kind of "flexibility:" it's the kind that makes the railroad money.

I spent a goodly number of hours with their designer, L.W. Wylie.

Best regards, Michael Sol

When you talk electric locomotive costs, you should remember to factor in the power substations and caternary (sp?). They didn't maintain or run themselves. The diesels carried their own built in generators.

Without the power supply or distribution system, their flexibility is zero.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Michael Sol:

What is your word count in this thread?

Don't you think you've expended an awful lot of effort not to have proven any more than you have?

Couldn't your time have been spent more productively?

Old Timer

I'm surprised that he hasn't developed carpal tunnel syndrome, just on this thread.

[:D]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
When you talk electric locomotive costs, you should remember to factor in the power substations and caternary (sp?). They didn't maintain or run themselves. The diesels carried their own built in generators.

Without the power supply or distribution system, their flexibility is zero.

Electrification too!

Your comment underscores a misunderstanding, nearly total, between economic flexibility and something else, poorly defined, about where inappropriate motive power might be able to go in a pinch.

The entire premise behind long-lived motive power, that is, long economic service lives, is the lack of financing pressure. During a slow year, a fully paid off Stream engine or Electric engine can simply be put in storage. A $1.5 million locomotive today incurs carrying charges, whether leased or financed, at the rate of just about $600 per day.

A railroad doesn't have much choice about having excess power on the property for any appreciable amount of time. That guarantees the shortage when the upsurge comes.

Over the long term, Steam provided railroads with great flexibility. Thousands of locomotives were essentially put into storage during the Great Depression. They were available then for the surge of traffic during World War II. Had they been Diesel, they would have been turned back and likely scrapped. American railroads would not have been able to do what they did during WWII without that reserve of Steam.

Similarly, Electrification likewise permits motive power to be stored at little cost to the railroad, then activated when demand rises. Milwaukee Road's electric motive power fleet survived intact during the Great Depression with no carrying charges.

Had that equivalent fleet been Diesel, or had any railroad's equivalent fleet been Diesel at that time, railroads in general would have been in far worse financial shape than they already were by trying to maintain those fleets at 1920s levels. Ultimately, a few years into the Depression, there would have been no stored Diesel fleet..

The year 1941 would have been an entirely different experience for American railroads, and for the United States as a whole, had it not been for its Steam and Electric motive power.

Economic "flexibility" is what was historically important to railroads in the 20th Century. It is easy during an extended period of growth to forget lessons learned.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
When you talk electric locomotive costs, you should remember to factor in the power substations and caternary (sp?). They didn't maintain or run themselves. The diesels carried their own built in generators.

Without the power supply or distribution system, their flexibility is zero.

Electrification too!

Your comment underscores a misunderstanding, nearly total, between economic flexibility and something else, poorly defined, about where inappropriate motive power might be able to go in a pinch.

The entire premise behind long-lived motive power, that is, long economic service lives, is the lack of financing pressure. During a slow year, a fully paid off Stream engine or Electric engine can simply be put in storage. A $1.5 million locomotive today incurs carrying charges, whether leased or financed, at the rate of just about $600 per day.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Of course, this makes the assumption that all diesels would be bought on credit and steam or electric would be paid for in full regardless of when they were bought. There's no reason to assume that steam or electric locomotives, bought after World War 2, would be purchased with existing assets and not financed or leased. The railroad would have to borrow the money no matter which locomotive type was bought. Since few road diesels were bought before WW2, there's little comparison available based simply on finance charges.

Then there's the costs of "mothballing" locomotives, and, in the case of electrics, the power distribution system. This figure, plus the cost of returning these to service is NOT zero.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
When you talk electric locomotive costs, you should remember to factor in the power substations and caternary (sp?). They didn't maintain or run themselves. The diesels carried their own built in generators.

Without the power supply or distribution system, their flexibility is zero.

Had that equivalent fleet been Diesel, or had any railroad's equivalent fleet been Diesel at that time, railroads in general would have been in far worse financial shape than they already were by trying to maintain those fleets at 1920s levels. Ultimately, a few years into the Depression, there would have been no stored Diesel fleet..

The year 1941 would have been an entirely different experience for American railroads, and for the United States as a whole, had it not been for its Steam and Electric motive power.

Economic "flexibility" is what was historically important to railroads in the 20th Century. It is easy during an extended period of growth to forget lessons learned.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Again, this makes the assumption that all diesels would be bought on credit, and not paid off before the depression. And that all steam or electric locomotives would be fully owned or paid off.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Of course, this makes the assumption that all diesels would be bought on credit and steam or electric would be paid for in full regardless of when they were bought. There's no reason to assume that steam or electric locomotives, bought after World War 2, would be purchased with existing assets and not financed or leased. The railroad would have to borrow the money no matter which locomotive type was bought. Since few road diesels were bought before WW2, there's little comparison available based simply on finance charges.

Then there's the costs of "mothballing" locomotives, and, in the case of electrics, the power distribution system. This figure, plus the cost of returning these to service is NOT zero.

I realize this isn't your strong suit.

However, the "assumption" is based on the well-understood reality of the impact of the economic service life on the means of purchase used and that railroads would use, as they did with Steam and Electric, the most conservative means available to them if they could. With Dieselization, they couldn't.

Secondly, with Electrification, no one stated the electrification would shut down; there's no mothballing of the distribution system -- in the case of Milwaukee, the HVAC portion was used by the power companies in any event. The Electrification would not stop operating, only that the motive power necessary would be used and the remainder parked. The cost of returning a stored Electric to service is ... not much.

In the case of Steam, the cost of returning to service is less, in any hypothetical, than the cost of the financing charges plus the cost of returning to service of any Diesel.

The point is, the capital re-investment was not necessary at the onset of WWII, and, had that been necessary, the railroads would have been in an entirely different situation than they were, at a time when manufacturing capacity was at its most restricted.

As has been the point of several commentaries on this thread, the need to finance motive power purchased represented a substantial and adverse change in railroad expense and was brought about by the unexpectedly short service life combined with unexpectedly high maintenance costs of the new motive power.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Of course, this makes the assumption that all diesels would be bought on credit and steam or electric would be paid for in full regardless of when they were bought. There's no reason to assume that steam or electric locomotives, bought after World War 2, would be purchased with existing assets and not financed or leased. The railroad would have to borrow the money no matter which locomotive type was bought. Since few road diesels were bought before WW2, there's little comparison available based simply on finance charges.

Then there's the costs of "mothballing" locomotives, and, in the case of electrics, the power distribution system. This figure, plus the cost of returning these to service is NOT zero.

I realize this isn't your strong suit.

However, the "assumption" is based on tthe well-understood reality of the impact of the economic service life on the means of purchase used and that railroads would use, as they did with Steam and Electric, the most conservative means available to them if they could. With Dieselization, they couldn't.

Secondly, with Electrification, no one stated the electrification would shut down; there's no mothballing of the distribution system -- in the case of Milwaukee, the HVAC portion was used by the power companies in any event. The Electrification would not stop operating, only that the motive power necessary would be used and the remainder parked. The cost of returning a stored Electric to service is ... not much.

In the case of Steam, the cost of returning to service is less, in any hypothetical, than the cost of the financing charges plus the cost of returning to service of any Diesel.

The point is, the capital re-investment was not necessary at the onset of WWII, and, had that been necessary, the railroads would have been in an entirely different situation than they were, at a time when manufacturing capacity was at its most restricted.

As has been the point of several commentaries on this thread, the need to finance motive power purchased represented a substantial and adverse change in railroad expense and was brought about by the unexpectedly short service life combined with unexpectedly high maintenance costs of the new motive power.

Best regards, Michael Sol

While the claim that the RAPID dieselization caused the railroads to lose money is believable based on many factors, the finance charges on the purchase being only one of them, the fact remains that there were many locomotives that needed to be replaced after WW2. The decision to finance these or pay for them outright would be based on availability of the funds as weighed against the terms of the loan or lease. This decision would be made regardless of the choice of locomotive type.

The service life of a locomotive would vary depending on mileage, and how often the locomotive was rebuilt. The cost of rebuilding would vary depending on who did the work. In the days of steam, large railroads had the capability of rebuilding their own locomotives, some even built them from the ground up. Steam locomotives were rebuilt completely at 5 year intervals (ever hear of a Class 3 overhaul?) and the railroads went on the premise that they could do this work in house with the new diesels. The shops took some time "gearing up" for this work, but even today the Juniata Shops, for example, are even doing assembly work for EMD.

And the Milwaukee road had that big of a demand for Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) that their electrification system was used for it? But seriously, the weather is a major factor on the wear and tear of the miles of overhead wire and supports of the electrification system, regardless of how many trains a day use it. The cost of returning ANY locomotive to service is strongly dependant on HOW it was stored and what preparations were done to it before storage. You can't just roll them into an abandoned yard, leave them sit, and expect them to be ready to go on a moment's notice. For an extreme example, we deal with poorly stored locomotives (and cars) when determining which locomotive to restore next at Steamtown.

And if you check the history books, the War Production Board restricted the manufacture of diesel, steam, and electric locomotives early in WW2, so there was little decision to make about buying locomotives. They didn't have the opportunity in many cases. As soon as the board released the locomotive manufacturers from these restrictions, railroads were ready to start buying big time to replace the locomotives that would normally have been replaced during the war, plus new ones for the perceived increased traffic.

And again you're making the assumption that ALL steam locomotives on the railroad, stored or not, were completely paid for, and that ALL diesels would be financed.

The adverse effect of financing locomotive purchases would be there regardless of whether they bought steam or diesel. At that point in history, it would depend on, as I said above, availability of funds.

[MichaelSol]

HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators.

It is not an assumption that railroads, for the most part, did not finance steam. It is not an assumption that most diesels were financed. The "availability" of funds was not a determining factor since debt invariably "reduces" the availability of funds unless it purchases greater efficiency, which cannot be found in the statistical record.

It doesn't matter how often steam was overhauled, that information is contained in the statistical record of repair costs maintained by the railroads and reported to the ICC, for a direct comparison with Diesel.

Your conclusion that Steam would have been purchased by financing as Diesel was is not supported in any way by the developed record, nor by any experience you seem to have in the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Maybe you should Google HVAC and see how many pages you need to go through before you DON'T get Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning. I gave up after 3 pages.