Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[oltmannd]

Only by analogy. There were lots of changes in RRing from 1945 until mid 1970s when, not only did the wheels come off, but the axles broke, too.

I think all of those changes, with the exception of the investment in passenger svc, were valiant attempts to pump the bilge out of ship that was being swamped by a huge, rapid shift in post WWII society. It was the rapid change in the US and the inability of RRs to adjust fast enough to it that caused their decline.

I have no doubt that the ROI for dieselization was different than predicted - and there were unintended consequences, too. It's that way with all big capital projects. But, after one overhaul cycle, you pretty much know what your costs, utilization, etc. will be from a given locomotive model. I just can't believe that RR would have INCREASED their replacement rate of steam locomotives going into the mid 1950s if there was not a positive ROI.

And, its really too much for me to swallow that it was THE driving force behind declining RR fortunes during that period.

[Modelcar]

Michael....We had a major turnpike through much of the rust belt by 1940....! It is widely known as the Pennsylvania Turnpike...{and we know it's full of trucks hauling freight}...now part of the interstate system. And just on the coincidence side I happen to have a Pickett slide rule right here in front of me in the desk.....And by the way the Pennsy Turnpike took the place of where a railroad was to be many years before...{Just trivia}.

[Anonymous]

This whole topic is the most stupid one I have ever seen. History tells it all.. 10 min of my life I will never get back.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tilden
[Now, how often did a steam engine stop for water? Every 60 to 100 miles in hilly terrain?It truely is the numbers.

Well, maybe on Petticoat Junction, that is, I think TV had some impact on this perception.

"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.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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.

You will have to provide some detail on the interesting proposition that the advent of the 100 ton car impacted railroads 1945-1960, and the idea that unit trains and intermodal adversely impacted railroads during that time as well.

I would argue that those things were in reaction to changes in the markets due to the changes in society post WWII.

Unit trains were a reaction to death of traditional coal business. Home heating and industrial coal markets just plain went away. Power generation was what was left and where the growth was. No unit trains = power plants closer to coal source and trans by pipeline, conveyor or truck, not rail.

Intermodal was reaction to improvement in highway network and decline of heavy industry in the rust belt. 1st RR in in a big way was PRR - which not coincidentally had route map that matched the turnpike network. Traditional customers were dying. New ones were along the turnpikes and out in the suburbs - far from RR terminals.

Well, I didn't mean for this to be a trick question. The 100 ton car was not a factor in general railroad operations 1945-1960. They had nothing to do with the declining rate of return during that era. They weren't there in significant numbers and if they were, they should have increased the rate of return assuming that was their intended purpose.

Same with unit trains and intermodal. Just not a factor prior to 1960. And if they were, you would be arguing that all of these influences were negative. Good grief, do you think railroad management was that bad? And if you do, then doesn't that offer support for the proposition that management entered into an important decision with regard to the timing and extent of dieselization without a full understanding of the facts, based in large part on demonstrated errors in the cost/benefit study assumptions?

But, since their influence was on a different era altogether, what is their role in explaining how dieselization did or did not adversely affect the ROI of railroads?

Just about nothing.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?

Not sure what your point is.

correlation does not equal cause and effect.....

Well, since no one has actually shown a correlation between turnpikes and the loss of industry, it's not much of a proof of anything. You say the turnpikes were in place in 1950. The term "rustbelt" came into use when industries began closing in the 1970s. The connection? I have no idea what you are suggesting. or how that is relevant to an actual correlation of two events occuring during the same time period.

"Correlation" as a statistical analytical tool is, however, much more reliable in showing cause and effect than the idea of waiving arms and insisting that "other things" were going on, and therefore can ipso facto be offered as "proof" that the demonstrated correlation is in error.

"Other things going on" is just not much of an argument. About anything.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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.

You will have to provide some detail on the interesting proposition that the advent of the 100 ton car impacted railroads 1945-1960, and the idea that unit trains and intermodal adversely impacted railroads during that time as well.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I would argue that those things were in reaction to changes in the markets due to the changes in society post WWII.

Unit trains were a reaction to death of traditional coal business. Home heating and industrial coal markets just plain went away. Power generation was what was left and where the growth was. No unit trains = power plants closer to coal source and trans by pipeline, conveyor or truck, not rail.

Intermodal was reaction to improvement in highway network and decline of heavy industry in the rust belt. 1st RR in in a big way was PRR - which not coincidentally had route map that matched the turnpike network. Traditional customers were dying. New ones were along the turnpikes and out in the suburbs - far from RR terminals.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Interesting. What do they do with the coke?

Well, with a 24.8 million Btu/ton energy content, coke is either used up or sent to a steel mill where they use coke in the furnaces. Sugar beet factories, oddly enough, used to prefer coke, and perhaps still do, for their furnaces.

Slag residue is used for road building.

In most coal gasification process where methane is the end-product, the catalytic processes involved produce no coke; it is not part of the process. Catalytic conversion has taken coke out of the cycle.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Nobody has yet been able to de-a***he coal well enough yet for direct combustion or injection. Erosion rates on blade and injectors are still way to high for economic use.Gasification of the coal is no good, because if you leave the carbon uncombusted, your fuel cost is way to high. Gotta burn the carbon, too, not just the coal gas.

No doubt a huge surprise at the Great Plains Coal Gasification plant in Beulah, ND., Southern California Edison's Cool Water project near Barstow, California. 100 MW, Polk Power Station at Mulberry, Florida, 313 MW, and Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project at West Terre Haute, Indiana, 292 megawatts.

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%.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Interesting. What do they do with the coke?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

By 1950, the turnpike system was in place from Boston to Baltimore to Chicago - serving the most populated and heavily industrial part of the nation. Additionally, there were limited access and other multilane highways being constructed in the guise of US highways that enhanced the turnpike network.

Well, if they were already there when railroads were earning 4%, their presence really doesn't explain why railroads dropped to 2% over the decade of dieselization.

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?

Not sure what your point is.

Best regards, Michael

correlation does not equal cause and effect.....

[Anonymous]

Keep going Michael.

This is pretty interesting.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Nobody has yet been able to de-a***he coal well enough yet for direct combustion or injection. Erosion rates on blade and injectors are still way to high for economic use.Gasification of the coal is no good, because if you leave the carbon uncombusted, your fuel cost is way to high. Gotta burn the carbon, too, not just the coal gas.

No doubt a huge surprise at the Great Plains Coal Gasification plant in Beulah, ND., Southern California Edison's Cool Water project near Barstow, California. 100 MW, Polk Power Station at Mulberry, Florida, 313 MW, and Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project at West Terre Haute, Indiana, 292 megawatts.

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%.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

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.

You will have to provide some detail on the interesting proposition that the advent of the 100 ton car impacted railroads 1945-1960, and the idea that unit trains and intermodal adversely impacted railroads during that time as well.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

By 1950, the turnpike system was in place from Boston to Baltimore to Chicago - serving the most populated and heavily industrial part of the nation. Additionally, there were limited access and other multilane highways being constructed in the guise of US highways that enhanced the turnpike network.

Well, if they were already there when railroads were earning 4%, their presence really doesn't explain why railroads dropped to 2% over the decade of dieselization.

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?

Not sure what your point is.

Best regards, Michael

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Coal gasification technology will permit internal combustion engines to reap all the benefits of higher fuel prices when the prices get to that point, and that point will be before railroads want to deal with hard coal as a fuel supply.

Let me revisit that notion. It's been a while since I put a way my Pickett slide rule and left the chemical engineering field, but, as I now recall, finely crushed coal takes on an almost liquid character, and has identifiable flow characteristics. In the late 1970s, producers were looking seriously at coal slurry pipelines as an alternative to rail transport. Coal may not be that difficult to utilize.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Somebody had or designed a turbine that ran on powdered coal, I'll go look it up and tell you about it later.

Nobody has yet been able to de-a***he coal well enough yet for direct combustion or injection. Erosion rates on blade and injectors are still way to high for economic use.

Gasification of the coal is no good, because if you leave the carbon uncombusted, your fuel cost is way to high. Gotta burn the carbon, too, not just the coal gas.

[oltmannd]

By 1950, the turnpike system was in place from Boston to Baltimore to Chicago - serving the most populated and heavily industrial part of the nation. Additionally, there were limited access and other multilane highways being constructed in the guise of US highways that enhanced the turnpike network. (US 22 and US 30 in NJ and eastern PA, US 40 in MD, for example). Many of these were later rebadged as interstates. That the "true" interstate network came later is irrelevant for this arguement.

The turnpiked-rust belt is still the most populated area of the country. 40% of the US and Canada live within 500 miles of Harrisburg PA. It is no longer the most industrial, however.

Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Yes, something enormous did happen at the same time of diesilization. The Interstate Highway System. This was far more enourmous that the dieselization,

Well, we have a considerable disagreement about that.

Dieselization was nearly complete when Congress first authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956, the first pavement was not put down until 1957, and by 1960, it was still pretty much a few chunks of urban throughways. Dieselization of American railroads was over by then, and the ROI had already plainly suffered.

I study I did on the effect of interstates showed a high correlation between the presence of interstate highway "competition" and improving operating ratios. The reason: the highways took the short hauls on which the railroads lost money anyway, capital needs for equipment decreased, relatively, because loss of short haul freed up equipment otherwise tied up in service; older equipment could be retired more rapidly.

Short hauls, in those regulated days, were a poor use of employee manpower and equipment in terms of railroad efficiency compared to revenue earned.

Indeed, the loss of that traffic lessened the need for new diesels. During the period in questiion, the Interstate Highway System did more good than harm for the freight rail industry.

As it began to reach completion after 1969, that is a different era and a different discussion.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Tilden]

I remember hanging around the yard in Pocatello Idaho one day when the Seattle to Chicago container train came through. It had run non-stop from Seattle and was being fueled. NOT because it needed it, but because it was more convienent to refuel it further down the line the next time. The trainmaster came by and stated he'd just as soon have a larger fuel tank so they wouldn't have to stop at all!
Now, how often did a steam engine stop for water? Every 60 to 100 miles in hilly terrain?
It truely is the numbers.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Yes, something enormous did happen at the same time of diesilization. The Interstate Highway System. This was far more enourmous that the dieselization,

Well, we have a considerable disagreement about that.

Dieselization was nearly complete when Congress first authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956, the first pavement was not put down until 1957, and by 1960, it was still pretty much a few chunks of urban throughways. Dieselization of American railroads was over by then, and the ROI had already plainly suffered.

I study I did on the effect of interstates showed a high correlation between the presence of interstate highway "competition" and improving operating ratios. The reason: the highways took the short hauls on which the railroads lost money anyway, capital needs for equipment decreased, relatively, because loss of short haul freed up equipment otherwise tied up in service; older equipment could be retired more rapidly.

Short hauls, in those regulated days, were a poor use of employee manpower and equipment in terms of railroad efficiency compared to revenue earned.

Indeed, the loss of that traffic lessened the need for new diesels. During the period in questiion, the Interstate Highway System did more good than harm for the freight rail industry.

As it began to reach completion after 1969, that is a different era and a different discussion.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Coal gasification technology will permit internal combustion engines to reap all the benefits of higher fuel prices when the prices get to that point, and that point will be before railroads want to deal with hard coal as a fuel supply.

Let me revisit that notion. It's been a while since I put a way my Pickett slide rule and left the chemical engineering field, but, as I now recall, finely crushed coal takes on an almost liquid character, and has identifiable flow characteristics. In the late 1970s, producers were looking seriously at coal slurry pipelines as an alternative to rail transport. Coal may not be that difficult to utilize.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Somebody had or designed a turbine that ran on powdered coal, I'll go look it up and tell you about it later.

[oltmannd]

If steam to diesel wasn't a "slam dunk", there should have been a holdout or two who stuck with steam.

The closest to a holdout would be the N&W. They had every reason to want to hang on to coal as propulsion fuel and almost no outside forces pushing them to dieselize. They had a track record of designing and building some of the best steam locomotives. They had the facilities and workforce to do it. They owned all the coal they would ever need and it was located centrally to their operations. The Jawn Henry was, prehaps, the best attempt at building a steam locomotive whose thermal efficiency wasn't in the gutter.

In the end, none of it was enough and the N&W dieselized.

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.

I'd be more inclined to think that the sea change in American society between 1945 and 1965 had much more to do with the fortunes of american RRs than dieselizaton.

What next? The supposition that the finished vehicles should still be carried in box cars instead of racks because of the greater potential for backhaul?

[daveklepper]

Yes, something enormous did happen at the same time of diesilization. The Interstate Highway System. This was far more enourmous that the dieselization, particularly the diesilization of such already efficient railroads as the Norfolk and Western, which had managed to coax near-diesel economy from its steam locomotive fleet.

The general consensus is, and I agree, that diesilization SAVED most of the railroad lines that are around today. Without diesilization, we would either have a nationalized tax supported money loosing naitonal railroad system or just a few profitable core lines remaining, those with heavy coal traffic and double stack containers.

Just as the economies and decent ride of the GM and Mack diesel buses (as compared both with Birney streetcars and gas buses) saved transit in many of the USA's smaller cities and larger towns until subsidies on the basis of traffic-congestion relief and economic growth rejuvinated the transit industry and made possible new light rail lines.

That does not, however, in my mind contradict the somewhat predatory nature of GM when they first bought New York Railways in 1926 and helped establish National City Lines in the 1930's.

[Tim Burton]

Great debate guys. Many good poings.

[Tim Burton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

MichaelSol: If I understand what you're saying,you think that dieselization was not a move in the right direction for railroads, based on costs in the 1940's and 1950's. Wouldn't that equation have changed, as labor costs per man/hour increased? This brings me to this question: If steam is such a *bargain*, compared to diesel, why did the Chinese, with a big supply of cheap labor available decide to dieselize?

This is easy. They didn't want to lose face. People see Steam as backwards and China is doing everything under the sun to show that they are NOT backwards people.

They as a society are trying to modernize everything from telecommunication to the military. They saw the steam locomotive as backwards and old fashion, whereas desiel was new and modern.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Coal gasification technology will permit internal combustion engines to reap all the benefits of higher fuel prices when the prices get to that point, and that point will be before railroads want to deal with hard coal as a fuel supply.

Let me revisit that notion. It's been a while since I put away my Pickett slide rule and left the chemical engineering field, but, as I now recall, finely crushed coal takes on an almost liquid character, and has identifiable flow characteristics. In the late 1970s, producers were looking seriously at coal slurry pipelines as an alternative to rail transport. Coal may not be that difficult to utilize.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Thank you. So how long did the old diesels last compared to the steam engines in their service life?
I don't think China should be ignored, I think it should be researched, since they kept steam around for so long, maybe they discovered some of what you have been saying and having plenty of coal (compared to oil) waited for a more opportune time to switch to diesels. Of course that is just speculation.

"Joe" Stalin believed that railway electrification was necessary to show the world that the Soviet Union was a modern, industrialized country. So, Soviet railways began to electrify. The decision was based on Russian nationalism, not economic analysis. His interesting acknowledgment of Milwaukee Road pioneering technology was, of course, memorialized by the Milwaukee's "Little Joes."

State owned railroads generally aren't as concerned with the "bottom line," that is, they make decisions which are often based on national interest or national perception rather than 'rate of return.' How those decisions might be relevant to American railroad management and the investment decision making process may be interesting, but probably not useful nor even informative without the kind of detailed statistics available, for instance, in Transport Statistics of the United States.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Regarding China's late dieselization, I will speculate that they used their steam locomotives to their fullest life potential, thus squeezing every penny out of the investment, before switching over to diesels. By that time, there were few if any steam locomotive manufacturers left in the world, while diesel locomotive manufacturers were aplenty. Perhaps if modern steam was still being marketed, they'd have continued with steamers at that time.

But of course this is pure speculation.

[Anonymous]

Michael,

A Question: In your modern steam turbine example, is that direct drive aka Pennsy's S-2 or electric traction aka N & W's TE-1?

[Anonymous]

Thank you. So how long did the old diesels last compared to the steam engines in their service life?
I don't think China should be ignored, I think it should be researched, since they kept steam around for so long, maybe they discovered some of what you have been saying and having plenty of coal (compared to oil) waited for a more opportune time to switch to diesels. Of course that is just speculation.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Sir please expand on your information. Dropped form half of what, in what year, this is very intesting let's hear the specifics.

At the beginning of the full-blown process of dieselization, 1945, railroad rates of return on net investment averaged about 4%. By 1960, which can be viewed as the effective close of the dieselization era, the net return was approximately 2%. Then, subsequent generations of new, more expensive equipment were required because of the unexpectedly short economic service life of the diesel-electric locomotive in road service. Even by 1957, railroads were realizing that the depreciation schedules originally adopted on the basis of EMD recommendations were far too optimistic, and the IRS was pursuaded to reduce the depreciation period from 20 to 14 years.

Unfortunately, for the machines in heavy road service, even this did not reflect the reality that new generations of locomotives were necessary on approximately eight year cycles. New financing piled onto existing financing, further eroding profitability. MOW budgets declined to accomodate the need to replace the first and second generations of road diesels.

It was a mess.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MJ4562]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
The much-vaunted "bottom line" seems pretty clear as to what happened.

I'm open to your idea and find it intriguing, however, I think you are going about your analysis wrong. When you go by the bottom line you include a lot of other factors that may or may not be related to diesel vs. steam. The bottom line also does not tell the whole story as it is just one of many different measures needed to paint a complete picture.

A few questions about your cost of steam vs. diesel per pulling power unit:

- What are you basing your steam loco on? I'm no expert but I'm sure it varied greatly by type.

- If you base it on a "state of the art modern, heavy-haul steam-turbine-electric locomotive" what is the cost of such a unit?

- Why wouldn't purchasing all new state of the art steam locos put the railroads in the same position as buying new diesels?

- Are you considering the way railroads actually use their equipment? Are you considering all the different duties a locomotive must perform in your analysis and the fact that you need different types of steam locos for each task? The efficiency of each, the total ownership cost of each?

- What about the impact of steam locos on the rails and the cost to repair the damage?

- What is the cost to upgrade branch line rail and bridges to allow the operation of the larger more efficient steam locos?

It would be great if you could post your complete analysis showing how you came up with total ownership cost for each model of steam locomotive and each diesel locomotive and how you allocated the cost of all the support equipment and labor.

The next step would be to pick a sample railroad, a year (say 1945) and determine the freight moves, what equipment would be needed for each and the cost. Compare using only modern equipment (c. 1945) and then again using realistic equipment mixes (20+ y/o steam and modern diesels).

Now that would be interesting to see and would put this issue to rest.