Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[MichaelSol]

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

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

QUOTE: 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).

It would have been a tough one for them. Took me about ten minutes to "research."

Penn State Engineering Library (Lehigh Valley):

Proceedings (Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Great Britain)).
Publisher: The Institution,
Pub date: 1849-1982.
Pages: v. :
LEHIGHVLY
Location: STACKS-LV --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5
Summary holdings: .182 pt.3B 1967/68
UP-ANNEX
Location: ANNEX --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5
Summary holdings: v.1 1847-v.148 no.3 1943, v.149 1943-v.183 1968/69.

The reference, for the fourth time:

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).

Whether it is hard for Engineering students, as you claim, it wasn't so difficult to simply access the card catalog from several thousand miles away.

Considering four repetitions of a citation, and its ready access through a card catalog, your remark that it "Isn't published anywhere" leads me to suspect something about you, and it isn't very kind about these endless remarks that obviously show you are simply fabricating this whole argument just to generate page after page of showing nothing about Dieselization, but a lot about you and the kind of person you are. You make stuff up. You argue about it, and then pretend you are clever.

None of this apparently really had anythng to do wth Dieselization, since you have contributed nothing useful to the discussion but intentional deceit, bizarre theories, and ever expanding areas of technical, historical, and financial analysis which, at each expansion, you show less and less even as you attempt to argue more and more.

-- Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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

Penn State Engineering Library (Lehigh Valley):

Proceedings (Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Great Britain)).
Publisher: The Institution,
Pub date: 1849-1982.
Pages: v. :
LEHIGHVLY
Location: STACKS-LV --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5
Summary holdings: .182 pt.3B 1967/68
UP-ANNEX
Location: ANNEX --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5
Summary holdings: v.1 1847-v.148 no.3 1943, v.149 1943-v.183 1968/69.

The reference, for the fourth time:

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).

Whether it is hard for Engineering students, as you claim, it wasn't so difficult to simply access the card catalog from several thousand miles away.

Considering four repetitions of a citation, and its ready access through a card catalog, your remark that it "Isn't published anywhere" leads me to suspect something about it, and it isn't very kind..

-- Michael Sol

Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

[chad thomas]

OMG- I can't believe you guys have filled up 33+ pages with this.[#dots]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

What you actually said was

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

Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you.

-- Michael Sol

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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

Penn State Engineering Library (Lehigh Valley):

Proceedings (Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Great Britain)).
Publisher: The Institution,
Pub date: 1849-1982.
Pages: v. :
LEHIGHVLY
Location: STACKS-LV --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5
Summary holdings: .182 pt.3B 1967/68
UP-ANNEX
Location: ANNEX --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5
Summary holdings: v.1 1847-v.148 no.3 1943, v.149 1943-v.183 1968/69.

The reference, for the fourth time:

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).

Whether it is hard for Engineering students, as you claim, it wasn't so difficult to simply access the card catalog from several thousand miles away.

Considering four repetitions of a citation, and its ready access through a card catalog, your remark that it "Isn't published anywhere" leads me to suspect something about it, and it isn't very kind..

-- Michael Sol

Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

Here, let me help you read this:

LEHIGHVLY
Location: STACKS-LV --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5
Summary holdings: .182 pt.3B 1967/68
UP-ANNEX
Location: ANNEX --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5
Summary holdings: v.1 1847-v.148 no.3 1943, v.149 1943-v.183 1968/69.

There are two references, one for Lehigh Valley Campus, and one for the University Park Library ANNEX which IS on the main campus. The first reference, for Lehigh Valley, shows only one volume listed (182). The second reference is the one I refered to in my earlier post. It shows volumes 1 - 183. It's in the library annex which means I can't just go to the library and pick it up off the shelf. When I said it would be hard to get, I meant that I would have to fill out a request form to get it, not that it wasn't there.

Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus.

I've been to the Lehigh Valley campus. It only has about two buildings last time I checked -- there may be more today. It used to be called Penn State Allentown.

[lonewoof]

I do not want to show favoritism here -- but I am curious: Tom Diehl, Old Timer, others -- is it your contention that railroads' ROI DID NOT DECREASE during the period while they were dieselizing? or that it DID decrease, but that the decrease was caused by SOMETHING ELSE? If so, WHAT?
\

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

What you actually said was

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

Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you.

-- Michael Sol

"Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation.

Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim.

Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history.

[AnthonyV]

Brown compared the actual costs of the mid-1950's Diesel fleet to a hypothetical steam fleet in terms of first cost, finance charges, repair costs, facilities costs, etc. For the road fleet, Brown estimated that the first costs of his hypothetical fleet would be about $1.93 billion, compared to the $2.76 billion actually spent on the Diesel fleet. He apparently assumed that the steam purchase would be financed since he includes interest on undepreciated equipment.

One important aspect of Brown's analysis is the size of the steam fleet needed to replace Diesels. Brown estimated the size of the steam fleet by equating horsepower to the total available road Diesel power and adjusting for the higher power of each steam unit and lower availability of steam. He does not define the term availability. For the road locomotive fleet, the result is that 11,800 3600-HP steam units were equivalent to 18,900 1,500-HP Diesel units. As far as I can tell, Brown did not consider how these locomotives would be utilized to meet the railroad's operational requirements.

It is possible to estimate the required size of the steam road fleet by using locomotive and train hours. Based on the data in Brown's paper fleet I estimated total and average locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945. Average annual steam road fleet locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945 ranged from about 1,200 to 1,700 hours per year, The 1,700 hours occurred during WWII. In contrast, the Diesel road fleet averaged over 3,800 hours per year in the mid 1950's.

I estimated that 27,900,000 Diesel train hours were logged in 1957. Assuming one steam locomotive per train and 1,700 hours per locomotive per year, I estimate that the number of steam road locomotives required would be 16,400 units, not the 11,800 that Brown estimated.

Assuming the fleet average could be increased to 2,000 hours, the number of steam locomotives would be 13,950.

Brown's hypothetical fleet would have to log 2,360 hours annually, which is a 39 percent increase over the historic maximum of 1,700 hours. Is this a realistic increase from a system-wide perspective (not an individual locomotive basis)?

The required investment in road locomotives would be $350,000,000 to $732,000,000 more that what Brown estimated. Expenditures for facilities, repairs, manpower, and finance charges would be additional.

The result of these calculations show that the steam road fleet utilization was rather poor over the 35-year time period considered. As with the fleet mileage results discussed in my earlier post, something dramatic occurred after Dieselization, as the Diesel compiled more than twice the number of annual operating hours than historic steam levels.

Was this a result of utilizing old, technologically obsolete steam power?

What was the average steam locomotive doing the remaining 7,000 hours per year?

Was it because the steam locomotive was inherently less versatile than the Diesel, requiring more locomotives?

How did the variable horsepower characteristic of steam affect its utilization?

What operational factors affected locomotive utilization?

Note that the results of these calculations are consistent with DaveKlepper's anecdote about the GP7 doing the work of several steam units.


Thanks

Anthony V.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lonewoof

I do not want to show favoritism here -- but I am curious: Tom Diehl, Old Timer, others -- is it your contention that railroads' ROI DID NOT DECREASE during the period while they were dieselizing? or that it DID decrease, but that the decrease was caused by SOMETHING ELSE? If so, WHAT?

No, the contention is that MichaelSol's interpretation of an obscure report is trying to prove that dieselization was a long term mistake. In his narrow minded interpretation, he has continually ignored or discounted questions that refute the Brown report, going so far as to call the people "stupid" or "idiots" because we dare to dispute or question the findings of who, he has proven with his entries, is nothing more than a paper shuffling desk jockey. And to make it worse, Michael's arguing that valid points must be wrong because Brown didn't consider them leads us to conclude that he didn't even know which papers to shuffle.

And no matter how many times you cut and paste that report reference, Michael, until it is accessible for us in this forum to see in its entirety, the "obscure" term stands.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

What you actually said was

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

Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you.

-- Michael Sol

"Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation.

Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim.

Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history.

I believe Mr. Miller stated:

Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus.

Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'."

I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one.

We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said.

I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately.

You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library.

You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies.

Why do you persist?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV

Brown compared the actual costs of the mid-1950's Diesel fleet to a hypothetical steam fleet in terms of first cost, finance charges, repair costs, facilities costs, etc. For the road fleet, Brown estimated that the first costs of his hypothetical fleet would be about $1.93 billion, compared to the $2.76 billion actually spent on the Diesel fleet. He apparently assumed that the steam purchase would be financed since he includes interest on undepreciated equipment.

One important aspect of Brown's analysis is the size of the steam fleet needed to replace Diesels. Brown estimated the size of the steam fleet by equating horsepower to the total available road Diesel power and adjusting for the higher power of each steam unit and lower availability of steam. He does not define the term availability. For the road locomotive fleet, the result is that 11,800 3600-HP steam units were equivalent to 18,900 1,500-HP Diesel units. As far as I can tell, Brown did not consider how these locomotives would be utilized to meet the railroad's operational requirements.

It is possible to estimate the required size of the steam road fleet by using locomotive and train hours. Based on the data in Brown's paper fleet I estimated total and average locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945. Average annual steam road fleet locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945 ranged from about 1,200 to 1,700 hours per year, The 1,700 hours occurred during WWII. In contrast, the Diesel road fleet averaged over 3,800 hours per year in the mid 1950's.

I estimated that 27,900,000 Diesel train hours were logged in 1957. Assuming one steam locomotive per train and 1,700 hours per locomotive per year, I estimate that the number of steam road locomotives required would be 16,400 units, not the 11,800 that Brown estimated.

Assuming the fleet average could be increased to 2,000 hours, the number of steam locomotives would be 13,950.

Brown's hypothetical fleet would have to log 2,360 hours annually, which is a 39 percent increase over the historic maximum of 1,700 hours. Is this a realistic increase from a system-wide perspective (not an individual locomotive basis)?

The required investment in road locomotives would be $350,000,000 to $732,000,000 more that what Brown estimated. Expenditures for facilities, repairs, manpower, and finance charges would be additional.

The result of these calculations show that the steam road fleet utilization was rather poor over the 35-year time period considered. As with the fleet mileage results discussed in my earlier post, something dramatic occurred after Dieselization, as the Diesel compiled more than twice the number of annual operating hours than historic steam levels.

Was this a result of utilizing old, technologically obsolete steam power?

What was the average steam locomotive doing the remaining 7,000 hours per year?

Was it because the steam locomotive was inherently less versatile than the Diesel, requiring more locomotives?

How did the variable horsepower characteristic of steam affect its utilization?

What operational factors affected locomotive utilization?

Note that the results of these calculations are consistent with DaveKlepper's anecdote about the GP7 doing the work of several steam units.


Thanks

Anthony V.

I'm assuming by this post that AnthonyV has access to this report, too.

So we're seeing two VERY different interpretations of the same report.

And I've noticed that AnthonyV hasn't called any of us "stupid" or "idiots" yet.

Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Who paid for Brown's study. I have never seen a consultant produce a document without someone paying for it. And whoever paid for it could determine what end result was desired.

PRR mistrusted consultants so much that when they realized that they needed to go outside their own corporation to determine whether the electrification should be replaced by diesel electrics or retained they hired three independent agencies to give three independent reports. PRR was afraid that the consultants would merely tell them what the consultants thought that PRR wanted to hear and by hiring multiple agencies at least one of them should produce a reliable report. If an organization who had all of the data (not just what was published) in front of them and could ask the tough questions of the consultant(s) didn't trust the consultants to give completely straight answers rather than being expensive yes men, how can we at this date be certain that whoever wrote the check that paid Brown didn't let him know what outcome was expected?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

What you actually said was

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

Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you.

-- Michael Sol

"Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation.

Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim.

Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history.

I believe Mr. Miller stated:

Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus.

Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'."

I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one.

We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said.

I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately.

You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library.

You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies.

Why do you persist?

Because the lies are yours.

The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum.

I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question.

Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite

Who paid for Brown's study. I have never seen a consultant produce a document without someone paying for it. And whoever paid for it could determine what end result was desired.

PRR mistrusted consultants so much that when they realized that they needed to go outside their own corporation to determine whether the electrification should be replaced by diesel electrics or retained they hired three independent agencies to give three independent reports. PRR was afraid that the consultants would merely tell them what the consultants thought that PRR wanted to hear and by hiring multiple agencies at least one of them should produce a reliable report. If an organization who had all of the data (not just what was published) in front of them and could ask the tough questions of the consultant(s) didn't trust the consultants to give completely straight answers rather than being expensive yes men, how can we at this date be certain that whoever wrote the check that paid Brown didn't let him know what outcome was expected?

I see I'm not the ONLY on that has such a high opinion of "consultants."

The whole PRR.

Wow.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

What you actually said was

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

Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you.

-- Michael Sol

"Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation.

Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim.

Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history.

I believe Mr. Miller stated:

Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus.

Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'."

I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one.

We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said.

I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately.

You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library.

You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies.

Why do you persist?

Because the lies are yours.

The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum.

I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question.

Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads.

You lied about your sources. Then you argued that Brown's paper was never actually published. Now your'e worried about the drive. Every hear about interlibrary loan?

Not much to misunderstand there about multiple pages of complete fabrications of studies you said you knew about. You did not ask about Brown's study. You stated you couldn't be bothered to read "such drivel." You justified that on the basis of the "many" studies which you said "all" -- repeat, "all"-- contradicted Brown.

You fabricated every argument on the basis of non-existent studies. I repeatedly asked you about them, and in between insults, you repeatedly stated you knew what they said.

But you didn't know any of that. You made it all up. Page after page of fabricated drivel, lie after lie, in pursuit of some weird agenda you have.

Now we find the whole problem really is that you don't like to drive.

Whew.

-- Michael Sol

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lonewoof

I do not want to show favoritism here -- but I am curious: Tom Diehl, Old Timer, others -- is it your contention that railroads' ROI DID NOT DECREASE during the period while they were dieselizing? or that it DID decrease, but that the decrease was caused by SOMETHING ELSE? If so, WHAT?

Dieselization did correspond to a declining ROI, but that, in and of itself, does not equate to cause and effect. To do this, the Brown paper is cited, which, as far as I can figure from everything M Sol has posted, shows that not all the original assumptions about diesels proved entirely accurate.

But, that doesn't seal the deal as far as I'm concerned. What's needed is a look at the original AFEs for dieselization and a comparison of actual results to the assumptions. Nobody's come up with that yet.

The problem is trying to untangle the upheaval in US mfg and society in general that resulted from highway building (among other things) in the late 40s and 50s from the effects of dieselization. For example, if you buy 100 diesels and shortly wind up with traffic to keep only 70 of them busy, you're going to generate some nasty bad nomalized stats!

If dieselization was bad for RRing, it was only because other factors had already doomed the RRs to failure and decisions were not being made on the basis of trying to sustain a long term operation, but to suck out any remaining value and give it to the stockholders before the game was over. But, even this idea leaves me a bit cold.

[TomDiehl]

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

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

What you actually said was

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

Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you.

-- Michael Sol

"Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation.

Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim.

Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history.

I believe Mr. Miller stated:

Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus.

Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'."

I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one.

We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said.

I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately.

You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library.

You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies.

Why do you persist?

Because the lies are yours.

The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum.

I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question.

Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads.

You lied about your sources. Then you argued that Brown's papaer was never actually published. Now your'e worried about the drive. Every hear about interlibrary loan?

Not much to misunderstand there about multiple pages of complete fabrications of studies you said you knew about. You did not ask about Brown's study. You stated you couldn't be bothered to read "such drivel." You justified that on the basis of the "many" studies which you said "all" -- repeat, "all"-- contradicted Brown.

You fabricated every argument on the basis of non-exstent studies. I repeatedly asked you about them, and in between insults, you repeatedly stated you knew what they said.

But you didn't know any of that. You made it all up. Page after page of fabricated drivel, lie after lie, in pursuit of some weird agenda you have.

Now we find the whole problem really is that you don't like to drive.

Whew.

-- Michael Sol

I KNEW I kept coming back to this thread for the humor value.

And he complains about the "page after page of fabricated drivel" when he was the one that posted it. LMAO

And if your conclusions and interpretations of the Brown report are as far out in left field as you ability to read what anybody else writes in here, as well as who actually started the insults and name calling in this post, I'm glad we seem to have found someone else that has actually read the report and is willing to answer questions about it WITHOUT the juvenile name calling.

We should start a poll and guess which name the Jr High Mikey is going to call me next.

I'm going to say "idiot."

Oops, now that he read that, he'll have to come up with another one.

[nanaimo73]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

We should start a poll and guess which name... ...is going to call me next.

I'm going to say "idiot."

I like "The Pennsylvania Pitbull."

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

We should start a poll and guess which name... ...is going to call me next.

I'm going to say "idiot."

I like "The Pennsylvania Pitbull."

LMAO, I like that one. Bet he'll never use it because of that fact.

At least my profile does have a bit about me. More than we can say about Phantom Michael.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV
It is possible to estimate the required size of the steam road fleet by using locomotive and train hours. Based on the data in Brown's paper fleet I estimated total and average locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945. Average annual steam road fleet locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945 ranged from about 1,200 to 1,700 hours per year, The 1,700 hours occurred during WWII. In contrast, the Diesel road fleet averaged over 3,800 hours per year in the mid 1950's.

As Brown pointed out, railway tonnage began to decline after 1920. Many steam locomotives went into storage, but their numbers are still there. On a per unit basis, it is true that a large Steam engine like a Northern will put in one-fourth of the locomotive hours to pull the same tonnage as four modern Diesels.

Not everything was a Northern, but that is why Brown chose to use the 1000 rail horsepower mile unit for significant comparisons. If you use only the locomotive mile measure, or only the hours measure, these will naturally give an advantage to the lower horsepower units. They have to work more and go farther, as a fleet, than higher horsepower units. This is irrespective of motive power, but it points to the dangers of selecting units that preferentially appear to favor lower horsepower units -- which is precisely what railroads did not need -- but which specifically favored a Diesel fleet under those specific circumstances.

As we discussed earlier in the thread, the idea of selecting a metric which seems to show one thing, placed in a broader context, often shows the exact opposite.

Certainly you are choosing units that will favor low horsepower designs.

QUOTE: I estimated that 27,900,000 Diesel train hours were logged in 1957. Assuming one steam locomotive per train and 1,700 hours per locomotive per year, I estimate that the number of steam road locomotives required would be 16,400 units, not the 11,800 that Brown estimated.

Because Brown recognized the existence of substantial numbers of high horsepower Steam locomotives compared to the entire fleet of relatively low horsepower Diesel locomotive units, his numbers would be diferent than yours. The assumption built into your numbers is that the average modern Steam engine was equal to the average Diesel locomotive, and that was not true.

If you assume the biggest Steam averaged 1,500 horsepower, you will get both the numbers and the costs you have estimated.

QUOTE: The result of these calculations show that the steam road fleet utilization was rather poor over the 35-year time period considered. As with the fleet mileage results discussed in my earlier post, something dramatic occurred after Dieselization, as the Diesel compiled more than twice the number of annual operating hours than historic steam levels.

A declining fleet usage, which Brown identifies as occuring after 1920, coupled with the Great Depression, would inevitably -- inevitably -- show a poor fleet utilization, although the cost of such low utilization was low. Brown goes into some detail about the circumstances of Steam locomotive production and fleet numbers resulting from declining tonnages after 1920. As he pointed out, and I am not sure why you are not referencing it, large numbers of pre-1915 locomotives remained in inventory. Even by 1945 those still constituted 40% of the Steam fleet. As the overall fleet was reduced, I recall that Brown mentioned that one new locomotive came in as two were retired. The acquisiton process was slow because of lack of need for new machines.

This was the reason that Brown felt the need to reference a hypothetical fleet, in order to properly represent both horsepower and the reality of modern Steam, compared to the statistical measure of what was, at the time, a very old fleet average of 27 years. There was nothing artificial about the hypothetical fleet, it simply reflected actual modern Steam power, as opposed to the fleet average of 27 years.

As I mentioned by way of comparison, had your approach been reversed, a comparison with "actual" Diesel with an average fleet age of 27 years, compared with a modern Steam fleet average 6.6 years, and the decision to convert fully to Steam would have been an even more attractive decision, since there wouldn't have been much of a Diesel fleet around at an average locomotive age of 27 years.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Dieselization did correspond to a declining ROI, but that, in and of itself, does not equate to cause and effect.

That's the question. And I am not persuaded yet that dieselization was "the" cause, or even "a" cause because, as you say, there were other economic shocks to the railroad business in those years.

Another assumption that needs to be questioned is the one that ROI was dropping steadily between 1950 and 1960. In fact, it was not declining downwards on a nice linear path, but jumped up and down between 2% and 4% all throughout that decade. The average probably shows a linear drop, but the annual data is all over the place, so that may be something else to consider if someone wanted to be "rigorous" about numbers.

Thanks.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV
In contrast, the Diesel road fleet averaged over 3,800 hours per year in the mid 1950's.

To add a slightly different perspective, if hours are logged to pull tonnage, and a fleet of lower horsepower units naturally need to operate more in order to pull the same tonnage, you might well find that using the standard, "locomotive" hour, that the 1950s Diesels were, by that standard, as good or better than the larger horsepower units today, even though the larger units today pull much more tonnage per unit. Yet, no one would argue that a 1954 EMD Diesel is, using that standard, superior to a 2006 road Diesel, merely because it had to work harder to get the job done.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Dieselization did correspond to a declining ROI, but that, in and of itself, does not equate to cause and effect.

That's the question. And I am not persuaded yet that dieselization was "the" cause, or even "a" cause because, as you say, there were other economic shocks to the railroad business in those years.

Another assumption that needs to be questioned is the one that ROI was dropping steadily between 1950 and 1960. In fact, it was not declining downwards on a nice linear path, but jumped up and down between 2% and 4% all throughout that decade. The average probably shows a linear drop, but the annual data is all over the place, so that may be something else to consider if someone wanted to be "rigorous" about numbers.

I posted a graph early in the thread showing ROI between 1950 and 1975, so there would be no question as to what was represented in that regard,

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

I had forgotten about your graph and I will review it.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
In his narrow minded interpretation, he has continually ignored or discounted questions that refute the Brown report, going so far as to call the people "stupid" or "idiots" because we dare to dispute or question the findings

Cite, with specificity, where on this thread any person was called an "idiot" or "stupid" based on disputing Brown's conclusions -- the conclusions you said you refused to read., but which you also said you questioned, but that which you also maintained were "refuted" by "questions."

-- Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

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

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.

What you actually said was

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

Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you.

-- Michael Sol

"Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation.

Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim.

Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history.

I believe Mr. Miller stated:

Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus.

Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'."

I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one.

We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said.

I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately.

You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library.

You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies.

Why do you persist?

Because the lies are yours.

The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum.

I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question.

Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads.

You lied about your sources. Then you argued that Brown's paper was never actually published. Now your'e worried about the drive. Every hear about interlibrary loan?

-- Michael Sol

Starting with calling someone a liar, which you have to misquote them to justify your remark. Sounds like name calling to me.

I never stated I had any sources. You were the one claiming that I had them.

I questioned IF the report was ever published, I never stated it wasn't.

Possibly buried in an archive at Penn State Main Campus (University Park) is hardly "readily accessible." was my statement.

I stated that "driving four hours (one way) to find out your couldn't read a report any better than you read the posts here" wasn't worth it." You stating that this proves "I don't like to drive" just shows off your lack of reading ability once again.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
you've failed time and again to prove that he is more authoritative than the people that wrote the reports for the railroads.

then:

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam.

Just in case there was any misunderstanding about all those studies:

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

Now TomDiehl claims:

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I never stated I had any sources. You were the one claiming that I had them.

Not content with attempting to deny his own statements on "all those studies" he claimed existed, he then turned to Brown's study:

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either.

Tom Diehl today:

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I questioned IF the report was ever published, I never stated it wasn't

[Anonymous]

Michael - we who tune in occasionally to laugh at your latest offerings sincerely appreciate your courteous reactions . . .

(In case you are as dense about writing as your are about the rest of this thread, that is known as IRONY.)

Don't look now, but your frustration is showing.

Best regards, Old Timer

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
you've failed time and again to prove that he is more authoritative than the people that wrote the reports for the railroads.

OMG, this is TOO funny. Let's take this one point at a time.

"More authoritative." Sounds more like questioning the writers qualifications, not denying the report's existance.

"than the people who wrote the reports for the railroads." I'm sorry WHAT did you say the sources were for the info in Brown's study?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam.

Just in case there was any misunderstanding about all those studies:

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

Now TomDiehl claims:

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I never stated I had any sources[/b]. You were the one claiming that I had them.

Yes, your reading ability STILL hasn't improved. Exactly WHERE does it say I have any studies done by anybody? Or is it reading between the lines again?

Also, see the response above.