QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098 All right let's calm down. Basically you have said that railroads should not have switched to diesels because it caused them to loose money. Some facts I think are pertinent and needed to determine this. How much more does a diesel cost to maintain than a steam engine in the shops? Is this more than what is saved in maintenance on the road (i.e. things like water towers) How much more did a diesel mechanic get paid, that you average roundhouse grunt that worked on steam engines? What was the difference in fuel costs between the two? You also stated that diesel locomotives had to be replaced sooner than a steamer. So what are the numbers on this? How long did a steamer last compared to the average diesel of the era? I know maybe these all can't be answered, or vary depending on the road, but definitely something to consider.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd [I would be willing to buy the arguement that states the RRs had pretty much given up on there being any future for the RRs by 1950 and were doing whatever it took to keep being able to pay out a dividend. If that meant taking on a lot of debt in order to save a nickel in operations, so that nickel could be put towards a dividend, then that was probably in the best interest of the stockholders. ...this fits with the lack of track maint in the 1950s - that was all operating expense that could be deferred in order to pay a dividend.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd [Are you just tying to pick a fight?[B)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd That there is a corelation between ROE and dieselization does not imply cause and effect. You might also argue that the decline was caused by the huge investment in passenger equipment. Or, intermodal equipment. Or, the introduction unit trains. Or, the introduction of 100 ton cars. All of which occurred during the same time period as dieseliztion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Impact of unit trians and 100 ton cars prior to 1960? None - obviously. But they were common by 1970 and overall ROI didn't improve any. So, they were worthless?
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd You're not telling me anything new about 100 ton cars.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Before you change the subject, because I am trying to nail down "all these other things" that affected the railroad ROI prior to 1960, I would still appreciate an answer as to how and to what extent the 100 ton car affected anything prior to 1960, how unit trains affected anything prior to 1960, and how intermodal affected railroads prior to 1960 as your proffered examples of things that overwhelmed the effects of dieselization of American railroads. These were indeed significant impactors of the railroads, but you offered them in the context of alternate responsibility for a declining ROI, and offered them as examples for the specific period prior to 1960. How did they negatively affect ROI? Particularly interested in the impact of the 100 ton car. Best regards, Michael Sol Impact of unit trians and 100 ton cars prior to 1960? None - obviously. But they were common by 1970 and overall ROI didn't improve any. So, they were worthless? No so fast. A proper analysis would have to compare to what would have been without those inovations, not just the results of the preceding time period - and you aren't doing that with your dieseliztion assertions. And of course that begs the question as to why you brought up unit trains and 100 ton cars in the dieselization context; since of course they had nothing to do with that era. And of course as you know, the impact of the 100 ton car and unit trains on the American railroad infrastructure has been the subject of considerable analysis and discussion, given the accelerated maintenance requirements that the railroads at the time couldn't afford on the scale necessary. Did the railroads expect they would have to rebuild their mainlines almost completely to handle 100 tonners and especially when used in unit trains? Was there an understanding that the changeover would again require an unprecedented capital investment that railroads at the time could ill afford? And all the while still purchasing new road diesels at ever higher prices on the short life cycle times? Not so fast indeed. We know exactly what the ultimate cost of those innovations were: the Rail Crisis of the 1970s, and which railroads only finally began to realize by 1968 ... when it was, once again, too late to change strategies, and ROI's once again took a plunge. Railway Age March 18, 1968, p. 29. You will search in vain for any indications that railroads, in plunging into yet a new round of cost-saving "innovations" after the dieselization debacle, had any idea that the 100 ton car would decrease rail life by up to half, and ties and ballast by nearly 30% with the concomitant increase in expenses system-wide, offering an overall increase in ton-mile costs of between 32 and 48% depending on the underlying track quality, representing actual incremental cost increases of between 9 cents and 14 cents per ton-mile. [Ahlf, "The Implications of the 100-Ton Car," Modern Railroads, February, 1980, AAR study "Findings of Panel," 1981. Rather than an economic benefit, railroads suffered a net economic penalty of 6 cents per ton mile on an average 200 mile per day run, as a result of the introduction of the 100 ton car. We know, in fact, that we don't have to compare with previous ROI and hypothetical results without the "innovations" to determine the net impact of the 100 ton car and the unit train because we have net results that speak for themselves because we have records for comparison. To suggest that there is some consistency in these results, obtained by the same railroads across a broad spectrum of managements, operating in lockstep every time someone says "innovation" can be judged by the ROI over that 25 period which, myriad excuses notwithstanding, still rested on key decisions with wide-ranging financial and operating implications and which resulted in continually declining ROIs. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Before you change the subject, because I am trying to nail down "all these other things" that affected the railroad ROI prior to 1960, I would still appreciate an answer as to how and to what extent the 100 ton car affected anything prior to 1960, how unit trains affected anything prior to 1960, and how intermodal affected railroads prior to 1960 as your proffered examples of things that overwhelmed the effects of dieselization of American railroads. These were indeed significant impactors of the railroads, but you offered them in the context of alternate responsibility for a declining ROI, and offered them as examples for the specific period prior to 1960. How did they negatively affect ROI? Particularly interested in the impact of the 100 ton car. Best regards, Michael Sol Impact of unit trians and 100 ton cars prior to 1960? None - obviously. But they were common by 1970 and overall ROI didn't improve any. So, they were worthless? No so fast. A proper analysis would have to compare to what would have been without those inovations, not just the results of the preceding time period - and you aren't doing that with your dieseliztion assertions.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Before you change the subject, because I am trying to nail down "all these other things" that affected the railroad ROI prior to 1960, I would still appreciate an answer as to how and to what extent the 100 ton car affected anything prior to 1960, how unit trains affected anything prior to 1960, and how intermodal affected railroads prior to 1960 as your proffered examples of things that overwhelmed the effects of dieselization of American railroads. These were indeed significant impactors of the railroads, but you offered them in the context of alternate responsibility for a declining ROI, and offered them as examples for the specific period prior to 1960. How did they negatively affect ROI? Particularly interested in the impact of the 100 ton car. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd 70% from any heat engine would have to include waste heat recovery to a large degree. I am confused about the what % of chemical energy from coal is captured by the gasification process (coal gas BTU/total coal BTU). What is the energy cost for the gassification? And, what is the thermal efficiency for the coal gas heat engine (gas turbine? boiler? what?) that is turning the generator? The Wabash River plant generates 292 megawatts of electricity, and supplies- 262 megawatts to the electric grid . Presumably the rest goes back to the gasification process. From the Department of Energy: Efficiency gains are another benefit of coal gasification. In a typical coal combustion plant, heat from burning coal is used to boil water, making steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. Only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity by most combustion plants, the rest is lost as waste heat. A coal gasification power plant, however, typically gets dual duty from the gases it produces. First, the coal gases, cleaned of impurities, are fired in a gas turbine - much like natural gas - to generate one source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine is then used to generate steam for a more conventional steam turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a "combined cycle," is much more efficient in converting coal's energy into usable electricity. The fuel efficiency of a coal gasification power plant can be boosted to 50 percent or more. Future concepts that incorporate a fuel cell or fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid could achieve efficiencies nearly twice today's typical coal combustion plants. If any of the remaining waste heat can be channeled into process steam or heat, perhaps for nearby factories or district heating plants, the overall fuel use efficiency of future gasification plants could reach 70 to 80 percent." Probably there is a separate thread more appropriate to this, particularly since there are specific, actual railroad content and questions pending. Best regards, Michael Sol Thanks. That explains part of it. A stack boiler for waste heat recovery. Could even use the stack boiler turbine exhaust steam to preheat the coal for the gassification process and get a bit more out of it. Still would like to know what they do with all the coke left over from the gassification process.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd 70% from any heat engine would have to include waste heat recovery to a large degree. I am confused about the what % of chemical energy from coal is captured by the gasification process (coal gas BTU/total coal BTU). What is the energy cost for the gassification? And, what is the thermal efficiency for the coal gas heat engine (gas turbine? boiler? what?) that is turning the generator? The Wabash River plant generates 292 megawatts of electricity, and supplies- 262 megawatts to the electric grid . Presumably the rest goes back to the gasification process. From the Department of Energy: Efficiency gains are another benefit of coal gasification. In a typical coal combustion plant, heat from burning coal is used to boil water, making steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. Only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity by most combustion plants, the rest is lost as waste heat. A coal gasification power plant, however, typically gets dual duty from the gases it produces. First, the coal gases, cleaned of impurities, are fired in a gas turbine - much like natural gas - to generate one source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine is then used to generate steam for a more conventional steam turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a "combined cycle," is much more efficient in converting coal's energy into usable electricity. The fuel efficiency of a coal gasification power plant can be boosted to 50 percent or more. Future concepts that incorporate a fuel cell or fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid could achieve efficiencies nearly twice today's typical coal combustion plants. If any of the remaining waste heat can be channeled into process steam or heat, perhaps for nearby factories or district heating plants, the overall fuel use efficiency of future gasification plants could reach 70 to 80 percent." Probably there is a separate thread more appropriate to this, particularly since there are specific, actual railroad content and questions pending. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd 70% from any heat engine would have to include waste heat recovery to a large degree. I am confused about the what % of chemical energy from coal is captured by the gasification process (coal gas BTU/total coal BTU). What is the energy cost for the gassification? And, what is the thermal efficiency for the coal gas heat engine (gas turbine? boiler? what?) that is turning the generator?
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Afterall thats what this forum is for , Opinions!
Have fun with your trains
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Its my understanding that dieselization was well under way right before WW2 broke out, the RRs were already convinced by the shear economic savings over the much more labor intensive steam locos. This transition was put on hiatus during the duration due to the higher priority of diesels needed for naval vessels. Once the war was over, and after a period of time for the major diesel locomotive manufacturers to retool factories, the steady march to supply diesel engines resumed. Dont forget, almost no new locomotives, steam or deisel were built during the war years unless they were priority ordered for the war effort, so the RRs had to run what they had and they ran what they had right into the ground due to the demand of shipping frieght a wartime economy demanded. By the end of the war, the RRs were going to have to replace the aging and wornout steamers with either new steamers, costly rebuildings of the worn old steamers, or buying less costly to operate new diesels locos. Its not hard to understand why the RRs chose to order the newer deisels, they were less expensive to operate and less expensive to maintain. Any loss in motive efficiency over steam was compensated by the economic gain. Money talks, especially to railroads. Sad side note: When the move towards dieselization began to really take hold by the 1950's, entire roundhouse crews, shop crews, entire facilities, whistlestops, watering and coaling stations were eliminated very quickly, throwing hundreds of RR workers out of work. Anyway thats all I got to say, very interesting topic[8D]
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 The ROI fell after WWII because costs (wages, passenger losses, ect.) rose faster than regulated rates were allowed to rise. Dieselization just cushioned the fall.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by timz QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The advantage of coal gasification is the potential recovery of up to 50% of the energy available in coal, with estimated eventual efficiencies of up to 70%. By "recovery" you mean they hope the gas will have 50-70% of the coal's energy, before the gas is burned? The power plant will generate electric power -- the ultimate end product -- to the extent that the plant can be said to have a conversion efficiency from coal of 50%, say compared to a modern diesel engine which has a conversion efficiency of 31-36%. of the energy in the diesel fuel. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by timz QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The advantage of coal gasification is the potential recovery of up to 50% of the energy available in coal, with estimated eventual efficiencies of up to 70%. By "recovery" you mean they hope the gas will have 50-70% of the coal's energy, before the gas is burned?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The advantage of coal gasification is the potential recovery of up to 50% of the energy available in coal, with estimated eventual efficiencies of up to 70%.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol "A modern coal-and-water station can load a tender with 24 tons of coal and 15,000 gallons of water in as little as four minutes. Many tenders are large enough to carry sufficient coal (or oil) and water to enable the engine to run for hundreds of miles without replenishing the supply." American Association of Railroads, 1942.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.