Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

37144 views

738 replies

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:42 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

I don't get my information on the railroad industry from Google.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Murphy Siding

Member since
May 2005
From: S.E. South Dakota
13,568 posts

Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:45 PM

Quote originally posted by Tom Diehl
While the claim that the RAPID dieselization caused the railroads to lose money is believable based on many factors

Holy Cow! Batman! I think Tom Diehl may have just agreed with Michael Sol [:O]
This one sentence kind of sums up what I had been thinking all along.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:48 PM

Michael Sol asserteth:

"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."

I can see, Michael, that you never were around Erwin, Tennessee, to crawl over a bunch of 4-6-6-4s that couldn't be scrapped by a dieselized Clinchfield because their equipment trusts weren't paid off.

You claim that you don't get your information on the railroad industry from Google. Well, my friend, you'd probably be better off if you did.

Best regards, Old Timer

Reply
Edit

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:52 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
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

You're the one making the statements that the costs of financing diesels added to the debt. An obvious statement. Even more obvious when the figures you quoted show that they purchased far more diesels than steam in the time period in question. There's little or no record of the financing costs of steam locomotives in this time period because of this.

However, the fact remains that the railroads needed to purchase new locomotives after WW2. Be the decision to purchase steam or diesel, the availability of funds at this point in history would determine if the locomotives would be purchased with available funds or financed. The financing costs would be added to the railroads expense sheet, regardless of which type locomotives they purchased. This simple fact negates the statement that purchasing diesels with borrowed money caused the downturn in their profit margin. The same thing would have happened if they purchased steam. THAT you have yet to disprove.

Then you'd have to find out if the financing interest rate would be the same for the purchase of steam as opposed to diesel.

The fact that railroads did their own overhauls on the steam is presented to show that the railroad managers were probably thinking along these lines when they thought the diesel could be overhauled in-house and the expense of it could be controlled because of this.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:54 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

I don't get my information on the railroad industry from Google.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So you make up your own acronyms? And assign your own names to them?

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:56 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Quote originally posted by Tom Diehl
While the claim that the RAPID dieselization caused the railroads to lose money is believable based on many factors

Holy Cow! Batman! I think Tom Diehl may have just agreed with Michael Sol [:O]
This one sentence kind of sums up what I had been thinking all along.

Well, when he states the Obvious........

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:01 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Michael Sol asserteth:

"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."

I can see, Michael, that you never were around Erwin, Tennessee, to crawl over a bunch of 4-6-6-4s that couldn't be scrapped by a dieselized Clinchfield because their equipment trusts weren't paid off.

You claim that you don't get your information on the railroad industry from Google. Well, my friend, you'd probably be better off if you did.

Best regards, Old Timer

I am sure you will continue to supply everyone with Google's latest.

The comment "Your conclusion that Steam would have been purchased by financing as Diesel was is not supported in any way by the developed record ..." while taken out of context, seems to be an SOP on your part. "As Diesel was" means in the fashion noted from the ICC reports: that whereas most Steam was in fact purchased outright, most Diesel was purchased on credit. In instances where Steam was purchased by trust or some other fashion, they were invariably paid off long before the economic service life was reached, whereas with Diesel the opposite was most often true. That fundamentally changed the financial dynamic of the rail industry.

I am sure that when Steam was being scrapped prematurely, instances such as you describe were true. All that demonstrates is the scrapping of a useful asset, in order to incur further debt. A risky financial strategy at best and one that the record shows did not succeed.

Your remark is in the fashion of someone pointing out that Steam still lives today at Steamtown, therefore that proves that Steam was best.

At best, you make a misleading observation, and you know it. An exception neither proves the rule, nor does it illuminate the conversation.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:10 PM

Michael Sol sayeth:

"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."

It may be misleading to you.

Michael, you've spent heaven knows how many hours on this thread, and I wonder what your payoff is. Is it that you can get fed up with the rest of us and stick out a needle hoping we'll say "ouch"?

I don't know what business you're in, nor what your experience is, and from reading your stuff it doesn't make any difference.

But if you're in some kind of business, and you spend this much unproductive time at it, it's clear you must be living on either unemployment or inherited wealth.

What this whole thing still comes down to is that you've taken a specious assumption, backed up by a consultant who has taken some figures and massaged them to his and your satisfaction, and presented an even more specious conclusion.

Are you still going to keep at it? Aren't you tired of it yet?

Best regards, Old Timer

Reply
Edit

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:12 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Michael Sol asserteth:

"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."

I can see, Michael, that you never were around Erwin, Tennessee, to crawl over a bunch of 4-6-6-4s that couldn't be scrapped by a dieselized Clinchfield because their equipment trusts weren't paid off.

You claim that you don't get your information on the railroad industry from Google. Well, my friend, you'd probably be better off if you did.

Best regards, Old Timer

I am sure you will continue to supply everyone with Google's latest.

The comment "Your conclusion that Steam would have been purchased by financing as Diesel was is not supported in any way by the developed record ..." while taken out of context, seems to be an SOP on your part. "As Diesel was" means in the fashion noted from the ICC reports: that whereas most Steam was in fact purchased outright, most Diesel was purchased on credit. In instances where Steam was purchased by trust or some other fashion, they were invariably paid off long before the economic service life was reached, whereas with Diesel the opposite was most often true. That fundamentally changed the financial dynamic of the rail industry.

At best, you make a misleading observation, and you know it. An exception neither proves the rule, nor does it illuminate the conversation.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Another example of the pot calling the kettle black on misleading observations.

Since you ARE making this conclusion, and discounting evidence presented by OldTimer that steam was, in fact, financed and not all were paid off by the time of retirement, answer this question:

After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels?

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:31 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Michael Sol sayeth:

"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."

It may be misleading to you.

Michael, you've spent heaven knows how many hours on this thread, and I wonder what your payoff is. Is it that you can get fed up with the rest of us and stick out a needle hoping we'll say "ouch"?

I don't know what business you're in, nor what your experience is, and from reading your stuff it doesn't make any difference.

But if you're in some kind of business, and you spend this much unproductive time at it, it's clear you must be living on either unemployment or inherited wealth.

What this whole thing still comes down to is that you've taken a specious assumption, backed up by a consultant who has taken some figures and massaged them to his and your satisfaction, and presented an even more specious conclusion.

Are you still going to keep at it? Aren't you tired of it yet?

Best regards, Old Timer

I keep wondering the same thing about you.

You've announced your departure from this thread numerous times, you've posted the same lengthy denunciations taking about three full pages worth by now, and never contributing a dime's worth of information.

You brag about your experience, but it seems curiously limited on the analytical side. You denounced the thread but confess to returning to it mutliple times. I'd say the baloney you've posted on this thread alone deserves an award for the most time wasted on a thread.

You don't like Brown, and you've made that clear, but I didn't notice that anyone cared. Your experience and education in railroad motive power was obviously neither of his caliber nor does it rise to the level of genuine professionals that I have worked with. You apparently failed your Professional Engineering exam and have had a grudge against genuine professionals ever since. It plainly shows. There's not much I can do about that, nor do I particularly care. It's your problem not mine.

Your continuing diatribes and unprofessional comments on this thread have offered nothing but the same refrain over and over. You act like a spoiled brat who can't get his way and so just keeps stamping his foot until he gets it. If you don't like the topic, you are cordially invited to butt out. Nobody invited you.

You don't need to worry about my business, I would suggest you mind your own. Judging by your repeated expressions of distress, I think you would be much the happier for it

Best regards, Michael Sol

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:46 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels?

Well, why would they? They had mostly all Steam fleets. They were downsizing rapidly. It was a historic opportunity to phase out older locomotives and retain the modern, high efficiency units supplemented by ongoing purchases. The post-War drop in tonnage didn't require an all new motive power fleet, at a substantially higher cost per hp than Steam. That alone is a significant factor.

If railroads had decided to purchase an entirely new Steam fleet, sure, they undoubtedly would have had to finance the purchases, even though at a significantly lower overall cost, but why?

Over 50% of the fleet was post-1930 "modern" Steam. Like the alleged savings in water, never mentioning lubricants, the savings in fuel, never mentioning financing charges, the alleged savings in maintenance, never admitting they went up, the old saw that Steam was "worn out" is just that: an old saw. Undoubtedly the pre-1915 Steam was worn out. It was before the War started, the modern Steam was not.

How does one know the condition of that fleet? From the maintenance curves generated from the maintenance costs recorded by the railroads themselves. They don't show a change indicating "worn out" power. The condition of motive power can be guaged accurately by that method.

Or, if you like, that "worn out power" had lower maintenance costs than new Diesels. My conclusion is that the "modern" Steam fleet was not worn out. There was plenty of money flowing during the war years to keep the motive power in top shape. The statistical record bears that out. Your conclusion, I am sure based on a careful examination of the relevant data, may be different.

Best regards, Michael Sol

greyhounds

Member since
August 2003
From: Antioch, IL
4,370 posts

Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

Posted by greyhounds on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:57 PM

]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels?

1) The railroads were, in fact, able to buy new locomotives during WW2.

2) The financing change was probably due to a vast right/left/middle of the road/ conspiracy directed directly against Montana wheat farmers. The whole goal was a multi-phase plan to destroy the Milwaukee Road by first driving it into receivership by making sure it had too much business. The next step was to drive up copper prices so as to make it attractive for the MILW to pull down its electrification and sell wire for scrap. This destroyed the ability of 12 locomotives, the "Little Joe Electrics" to save the entire Milwaukee.

After those two basic steps were accomplished, the surviving Evil Empire Builder's railroad could use its total control of the strategic Montana wheat transportation market to finance predatory pricing on grain moving from Minneapolis and drive barges off the Mississippi River; making the victimized Montana AND North Dakota wheat farmers pay for its predation.

The final phase of the vast conspiracy is now being implamented (with guidance from the Chinese and radical Muslims). The Evil Empire Builder's railroad is litterally forcing, I SAY FORCING, grain elevators to build loop tracks instead of regular sidings to get its best rates.

The World according to Sol.

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 12:03 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

I don't get my information on the railroad industry from Google.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So you make up your own acronyms? And assign your own names to them?

No. HVDC and HVAC are standard terms in general as well as railway electrification.

See below for a typical reference:

http://www.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/7DDFBC94976A73B5C1256E840040E044

ABB marks 50th anniversary of pioneering HVDC technology
2004-05-06 - Key interconnector technology supports power grid reliability
Zurich, Switzerland, May 6, 2004 – ABB, the leading power and automation technology group, today marked the 50th anniversary of its pioneering of HVDC (high-voltage direct current) technology with a series of events ...
..
The benefits of HVDC technology have received special attention in the wake of the blackouts in 2003. Compared to traditional high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) power lines, HVDC lines cannot be overloaded. With HVDC, the power flow can be controlled to ensure maximum power grid stability.

Best regards, Michael Sol

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 12:05 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels?

1) The railroads were, in fact, able to buy new locomotives during WW2.

The poster, who has apparently finally imbibed one too many, falsely attributes to me a remark in the quotation box above which I did not make. From that auspicious start, setting the usual standard, the slide into incoherence was inevitable but unusually rapid.

Best regards, Michael Sol

daveklepper

Member since
June 2002
20,067 posts

Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, February 2, 2006 5:14 AM

We have been arguing over RAPID dieselization. True, many railroads diesalized nearly overnight. The Norfolk and Western for one! But the UP seems to have taken a rather long time about it, ditto the Brulington. They started a dieselization program as soon as they could, right after WWII (and of course they already had some diesels on the property), but when were the final non-fan-trip fires pulled? About 15 or more years later! Meanwhile, they held steam in reserve for peaks, etc. Didn't they know what they were doing?

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 2, 2006 6:29 AM

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

In my line I must design the HVAC for our clean rooms, and it is Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. Perhaps you should subscribe to HVAC magazine and see what it is about.

Reply
Edit

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 8:33 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite

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

In my line I must design the HVAC for our clean rooms, and it is Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. Perhaps you should subscribe to HVAC magazine and see what it is about.

Oh good grief, I am a consultant for two HVAC companies -- the heating and air conditiong kind. I assure you I know what they are.

You can refer to nearly any document on high voltage power transmission and find the acronym HVAC used. It is a standard industry term. See: Siemens Power Engineering Guide, Transmission & Distribution (2004), "High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Transmission Systems Technology Review Paper" by Rudervall, Carpentier, and Sharma, prepared for the World Bank, A Department of Energy Symposium held August 3, 2001, "Analysis and Concepts to Address Electric Infrastructure Needs," "HVDC Transmission," by Dennis Woodford, Manitoba HVDC Research Centre, 3/18/98, "Challenging Opportunities for Incoming Engineers in HVDC Transmission Technology," Katancevic, IEEE Paper, 2002, Winter Meeting.

For Google types:
http://www.balkanenergy.com/engleski/powersystems.htm
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/cigresc14/page10.html
http://www.macleanpower.com/getnews.cfm?ShowNewsItem=5
http://www.acrastyle.co.uk/highvoltagepowerelectricsystems.htm
http://www.wgint.com/service.php?id=19
http://www.remotegasstrategies.com/gas-wire/index.asp

In the power generation industry, HVAC is the identical acronym is used. For those familiar with both industries, it is not remarkable. For those who are not, apparently it is remarkable.

Since there was no discussion of heating and air conditioning going on, I assumed, wrongly, that HVAC in the context of power transmission was self explanatory. Hopefully this sets the record straight that we were not talking about heating and air conditioning in the context of the 110 kvAC line of the Milwaukee Road electrification.

Best regards, Michael Sol

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 8:53 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

I don't get my information on the railroad industry from Google.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So you make up your own acronyms? And assign your own names to them?

No. HVDC and HVAC are standard terms in general as well as railway electrification.

See below for a typical reference:

http://www.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/7DDFBC94976A73B5C1256E840040E044

ABB marks 50th anniversary of pioneering HVDC technology
2004-05-06 - Key interconnector technology supports power grid reliability
Zurich, Switzerland, May 6, 2004 – ABB, the leading power and automation technology group, today marked the 50th anniversary of its pioneering of HVDC (high-voltage direct current) technology with a series of events ...
..
The benefits of HVDC technology have received special attention in the wake of the blackouts in 2003. Compared to traditional high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) power lines, HVDC lines cannot be overloaded. With HVDC, the power flow can be controlled to ensure maximum power grid stability.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm talking English, not Swiss. Or Balkan (whatever their language is)

Out of my entire argument, this is the only thing he could debate???

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:05 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels?

Well, why would they? They had mostly all Steam fleets. They were downsizing rapidly. It was a historic opportunity to phase out older locomotives and retain the modern, high efficiency units supplemented by ongoing purchases. The post-War drop in tonnage didn't require an all new motive power fleet, at a substantially higher cost per hp than Steam. That alone is a significant factor.

If railroads had decided to purchase an entirely new Steam fleet, sure, they undoubtedly would have had to finance the purchases, even though at a significantly lower overall cost, but why?

Best regards, Michael Sol

So you finally admit that if the railroads had decided to purchase steam at this point in history, they would have had to finance the purchase just like they did the purchase of diesels. The point I was trying to make is, that this factor needs to be considered if the argument is that the finance charges damaged the savings from the conversion to diesel. It was a charge they also would have had if they decided to buy new steam.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:17 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

How does one know the condition of that fleet? From the maintenance curves generated from the maintenance costs recorded by the railroads themselves. They don't show a change indicating "worn out" power. The condition of motive power can be guaged accurately by that method.

Or, if you like, that "worn out power" had lower maintenance costs than new Diesels. My conclusion is that the "modern" Steam fleet was not worn out. There was plenty of money flowing during the war years to keep the motive power in top shape. The statistical record bears that out. Your conclusion, I am sure based on a careful examination of the relevant data, may be different.

Best regards, Michael Sol

One major problem with this assumption is that the railroads had access to all the parts and materials needed to maintain the fleet during this period. The War Production Board strictly controlled the distribution of steel for domestic use, which is a major metal used in the construction and repair of steam locomotives (I offer this from personal experience). The lack of parts and materials will skew this figure, so evaluating it just on the book entries, without considering the situation would be misleading. It's like saying your car costs less to maintain because you never had oil available to change it when required.

Lack of proper and complete maintenance and repair at this time, coupled with the heavy surge in railroad traffic caused by the war, accelerated the wear and tear on the locomotives, as well as infrastructure and other rolling stock. The railroads were playing a serious game of catch-up on all these factors after WW2.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:36 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

We have been arguing over RAPID dieselization. True, many railroads diesalized nearly overnight. The Norfolk and Western for one! But the UP seems to have taken a rather long time about it, ditto the Brulington. They started a dieselization program as soon as they could, right after WWII (and of course they already had some diesels on the property), but when were the final non-fan-trip fires pulled? About 15 or more years later! Meanwhile, they held steam in reserve for peaks, etc. Didn't they know what they were doing?

Dave, I think that's the whole point of doing a study. You look at the results of important decisions.

Admittedly, there is a institutional bias by management to justify its decisions. Perhaps there is an institutional bias on the part of railfans as well. Management reviews of itself, OldTimer suggests, are inherently accurate.

An independent study by someone such as H.F. Brown, is denounced by OldTimer as biased. A thorough study published in a leading professional engineering journal is denounced on the basis of something someone who spends his time crouched over a model railroad read in Trains or in Railfan and Railroader. It is attacked on the specific basis that it came to conclusions different than "every railroad engineering department in the country" who "all did studies" and who "all" disagreed with Brown. Even though the claimant had never read a single one and no railroader has been able to be forthcoming with one.

That, in this game, is not seen as odd all by itself.

You would have expected the professional journals to be full of refutations of Brown. Instead there was a strange silence, as ROI's contiinued to decline.

It doesn't matter what industry, anyone who believes that management studies by management about their own decisions are accurate and not self-serving needs their head examined. OldTimer needs his head examined.

What is remarkable is the apparent lack of any thorough industry studies. Brown's is denounced as "obscure" by the guy who can't find any of a claimed many. Talk about "obscure." Or is "non-existent" the proper word?

You pose the question "didn't they know what they were doing?" Are you suggesting that because the available statistical evidence suggests they didn't, that historians must assume instead that they did, "just because"?

I know what happened to the Burlington's Operating Ratio during this time. I've looked at it. The same people who arrogantly denounce any critique on the basis that railroad managers are "only interested in the bottom line" -- a phrase that model railroaders use a lot -- cannot seem to explain why the bottom line, then, kept getting worse during this specific process.

And of course that is the logical conundrum. It cannot be said that it was a "good" decsion if no financial support exists for it. You see posters, in the process of twisting facts, denouncng the "twisting of facts," even while arguing that declining income, declining ROI, declining everything is actually proof that these managers were astute because as we have now seen proposed -- they were looking to the longer term "something" which apparently wasn't the "bottom line" either, judging by the actual results.

The fact that the "longer term" led to bankruptcy and near nationalization offers no remedy to what is purely an imaginary and largely mythical belief system that has no rational reference point to the events as they actually happened, nor to the financial results of the decision-making process.

To me, this is the only explanation of the vehement denunciations of a professional study of economic results by OldTimer. He doesn't have the talent nor background to challenge the technical aspects of the study. Lacking the technical proficiency to address the study, he can only attack the person, repeatedly. Look at his continuing efforts to shut down the conversation entirely, not by rational refutation, only by repeated verbal abuse.

Even more frustrating, he has no case: what Brown said was borne out entirely by the economic results that followed. The contrary argument, if there is one, is hard put to explain that, exactly what Brown said was the problem, continued to be the problem, the industry could not support the continuing financial burden imposed by the manner and extent to which it undertook Dieselization.

"History" sustained Brown's burden of proof. The study not only stands unrefuted, it had enormous predictive power for exactly what happened during the 20 years following its publication.

Whle the subject seems to generate an unusual emotional response, my response, prior to locating Brown's study after all these years, was to simply sit down and run through the numbers on a sample railroad. I was surprised by the results, because I suspected the subject railroad would be atypical. But, it's not that hard to do. If OldTimer had a case, and had the competence to do one, he could have done a study and offered his results.

He alleged, after all, he participated in quick and dirty studies of the Rock Island and the Milwaukee and "found no evidence" that Dieselization affected their bankrutpcies. It was that allegation that led me to suspect his overall competence on the subject. No one could look at the two large motive power purchases of Milwaukee Road in 1973 and 1974, and again in 1975 and 1976, and not conclude that the $18 million in increased annual charges suddenly imposed on the income of the railroad did not have a direct impact, far in excess of the defiicit which led to receivership, on the financial stability of the company.

Only one person on this entire thread actually took the time to independently attempt to analyze the study. Only two actually asked for copies of the Brown report.

That confirms to me that it is not that Brown did a study, it is that it is unacceptable to certain railfans and alleged railroaders that a well-known, highly experienced railroad motive power engineer would generate a study which, by simply analyzing results, called into question the competency of the decision.

Facts, reasonable people can discuss. Religion has always been a different matter.

Best regards, Michael Sol

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:44 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

We have been arguing over RAPID dieselization. True, many railroads diesalized nearly overnight. The Norfolk and Western for one! But the UP seems to have taken a rather long time about it, ditto the Brulington. They started a dieselization program as soon as they could, right after WWII (and of course they already had some diesels on the property), but when were the final non-fan-trip fires pulled? About 15 or more years later! Meanwhile, they held steam in reserve for peaks, etc. Didn't they know what they were doing?

Dave, I think that's the whole point of doing a study. You look at the results of important decisions.

Admittedly, there is a institutional bias by management to justify its decisions. Perhaps there is an institutional bias on the part of railfans as well. Management reviews of itself, OldTimer suggests, are inherently accurate.

An independent study by someone such as H.F. Brown, is denounced by OldTimer as biased. A thorough study published in a leading professional engineering journal is denounced on the basis of something someone who spends his time crouched over a model railroad read in Trains or in Railfan and Railroader. It is attacked on the specific basis that it came to conclusions different than "every railroad engineering department in the country" who "all did studies" and who "all" disagreed with Brown. Even though the claimant had never read a single one and no railroader has been able to be forthcoming with one.

That, in this game, is not seen as odd all by itself.

You would have expected the professional journals to be full of refutations of Brown. Instead there was a strange silence, as ROI's contiinued to decline.

It doesn't matter what industry, anyone who believes that management studies by management about their own decisions are accurate and not self-serving needs their head examined. OldTimer needs his head examined.

Best regards, Michael Sol

It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:50 AM

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. 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.

So the library at Pennsylvania State University, one of the leading engineering colleges in the country, would have to research to see if they even have it (or it even exists).

Maybe not obscure, but definately not readily available. Even to Engineering students.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:51 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so.

You represented to this forum that you knew all about them. That "presupposed" they had been published somewhere or that you had access to them. You had, in fact, lied about that. On that basis, we can "presuppose" that the absence of proof is exactly what it is: the absence of proof.

Best regards, Michael Sol

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:54 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so.

You represented to this forum that you knew all about them. That "presupposed" they had been published somewhere or that you had access to them. You had, in fact, lied about that. On that basis, we can "presuppose" that the absence of proof is exactly what it is: the absence of proof.

Best regards, Michael Sol

The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

ajmiller

Member since
October 2003
From: State College PA
344 posts

Posted by ajmiller on Thursday, February 2, 2006 10:06 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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. 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.

So the library at Pennsylvania State University, one of the leading engineering colleges in the country, would have to research to see if they even have it (or it even exists).

Maybe not obscure, but definately not readily available. Even to Engineering students.

As you say, Penn State is a leading engineering school, but Penn State's Engineering library is probably one of the worst among schools in the Big Ten(11) Conference. It's just one section of the 3rd floor of Hammond building. If you've ever been to State College, Hammond is the really long ugly building that stands along College Avenue. In the future though, the library will be moved to a yet unbuilt building in the West Campus near the other new engineering buildings.

Anonymous

Member since
April 2003
305,205 posts

Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 2, 2006 10:35 AM

I think an interesting analysis would be to see improvements in diesel locomotive efficiency in the first decade of their widespread use. I bet there would be some noticable efficiencies there. I read some numbers somewhere about this. If I can find them, I will post here.

Carry on gentlemen.

Reply
Edit

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 10:59 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Maybe not obscure, but definately not readily available. Even to Engineering students.

How do you know what is avaliable "even to engineering students"?

Are you one, or were you one?

Best regards, Michael Sol

MichaelSol

Member since
October 2004
3,190 posts

Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 11:01 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
The railroads were playing a serious game of catch-up on all these factors after WW2.

Were you there? Or are you just making this up too?

Best regards, Michael Sol

TomDiehl

Member since
February 2001
From: Poconos, PA
3,948 posts

Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 11:10 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
The railroads were playing a serious game of catch-up on all these factors after WW2.

Were you there? Or are you just making this up too?

Best regards, Michael Sol

LMAO. Now you're rewriting history. I guess you've never heard the term "deferred maintenance." BTW, that would ALSO skew the figures on maintenance costs.

So since you like this, I'll steal one of your lines: Where's YOUR proof.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown