QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so. You represented to this forum that you knew all about them. That "presupposed" they had been published somewhere or that you had access to them. You had, in fact, lied about that. On that basis, we can "presuppose" that the absence of proof is exactly what it is: the absence of proof. Best regards, Michael Sol The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so. You represented to this forum that you knew all about them. That "presupposed" they had been published somewhere or that you had access to them. You had, in fact, lied about that. On that basis, we can "presuppose" that the absence of proof is exactly what it is: the absence of proof. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl It also presupposes that ALL management studies, done by the industry itself would be published. Any study that shows management decisions weren't the best thing for the industry would be published on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/22/06: Ironically, this whole thesis is based on the writings of one engineering firm, which was basically the work of one or two engineers.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/23/06: ... some obscure study, done by someone working outside the US rail industry for a foreign railroad
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/24/06: Consultant----Loser Six---Half a dozen Different ways to say the same thing.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl2/2/06: I see I'm not the ONLY on that has such a high opinion of "consultants."
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehltoday: Out of curiosity, I turned back to the "Contributors" page where they introduce the authors and give a bit of background. Seems Jerry is "an international Railroad Consultant based in Seattle WA." Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 10:01 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/22/06: Ironically, this whole thesis is based on the writings of one engineering firm, which was basically the work of one or two engineers. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/23/06: ... some obscure study, done by someone working outside the US rail industry for a foreign railroad QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl1/24/06: Consultant----Loser Six---Half a dozen Different ways to say the same thing. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl2/2/06: I see I'm not the ONLY on that has such a high opinion of "consultants." QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehltoday: Out of curiosity, I turned back to the "Contributors" page where they introduce the authors and give a bit of background. Seems Jerry is "an international Railroad Consultant based in Seattle WA." And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, February 3, 2006 10:51 AM QUOTE: And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. Oddly enough, I haven't offered an opinion on the book at all. But it does appear you already have by way of stating you don't respect the writer, because he is a consultant, the worst kind of course, those who work for foreign railways. Isn't that the question they ask politicians now: "Were you lying yesterday, or are you lying today?" How do you really feel about consultants? Get it off your chest. Best regards. Michael Sol Reply samfp1943 Member sinceJune 2003 From: South Central,Ks 7,170 posts Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, February 3, 2006 11:25 AM 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." Got go with you, Nanaimo... Thirty-five pages, and most of the meat is in the first couple, no one is willing to give in, and it gets down to irrrational character assination. MIchael, Tom, neither one of you is gaining anything by this Three Stooges pie throwing rhetoric. When I worked for Harland Bartholomew some time ago there was an inside joke among the engineers and planners, that said, "...a consultant was anybody from out of town, that had a briefcase.". I think that the thing that got steam was the cost and maintenance of the infrastructure and population needed to keep them running. Best Regards, to all; Sam Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, February 3, 2006 12:21 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. My actual opinion, as opposed to the one you fabricated for me, was posted as follows three weeks ago: QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Then as now, among consulting firms there were the blue chips -- very expensive -- second tier firms that did OK work, and cheap and dirty firms. Gibbs & Hill was the pre-eminent transportation consulting firm, having built up their reputation particularly during thirty years of work for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Gibbs & Hill along with Coverdale & Colpitts were the old line firms for this kind of work. There is neither an expression of high regard, nor your condecension of utter contempt for them. I deal with consultants regularly and I do consulting regularly. As in any other endeavor, you respect the ones that do good work, and avoid the ones who don't know what they are doing. The good one can tell you exactly what you need to know, and the bad ones can send the company off in the wrong direction. My attitude on consultants is at odds with yours, as it is on most subjects. -- Michael Sol Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 12:51 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. Oddly enough, I haven't offered an opinion on the book at all. But it does appear you already have by way of stating you don't respect the writer, because he is a consultant, the worst kind of course, those who work for foreign railways. Isn't that the question they ask politicians now: "Were you lying yesterday, or are you lying today?" How do you really feel about consultants? Get it off your chest. Best regards. Michael Sol I've already stated how I feel about consultants. You, on the other hand, have assigned godlike infallability to one consultant, so I offered the views of another consultant. So in outline form: Two Consultants. Same topic. Different opinions. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 12:53 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943 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." Got go with you, Nanaimo... Thirty-five pages, and most of the meat is in the first couple, no one is willing to give in, and it gets down to irrrational character assination. MIchael, Tom, neither one of you is gaining anything by this Three Stooges pie throwing rhetoric. When I worked for Harland Bartholomew some time ago there was an inside joke among the engineers and planners, that said, "...a consultant was anybody from out of town, that had a briefcase.". I think that the thing that got steam was the cost and maintenance of the infrastructure and population needed to keep them running. Best Regards, to all; Sam But the pie-fighting scenes were the best. Admit it, you laughed when the stuffy, aloof, lady got the pie in the face. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, February 3, 2006 1:01 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I've already stated how I feel about consultants. You, on the other hand, have assigned godlike infallability to one consultant, so I offered the views of another consultant. So in outline form: Two Consultants. Same topic. Different opinions. The actual outline form: 1) You refuse to read one of them, because its drivel, even though you haven't read it. 2) You haven't fully read the second one yet, but you think you like him because you hope he contradicts the first one. 3) yet you know it all. That pretty well sums up your contributions. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 1:29 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I've already stated how I feel about consultants. You, on the other hand, have assigned godlike infallability to one consultant, so I offered the views of another consultant. So in outline form: Two Consultants. Same topic. Different opinions. The actual outline form: 1) You refuse to read one of them, because its drivel, even though you haven't read it. 2) You haven't fully read the second one yet, but you think you like him because you hope he contradicts the first one. 3) yet you know it all. That pretty well sums up your contributions. Best regards, Michael Sol *best Gilbert Godfried voice* Why am I not surprised? I guess there's no basis for comment from Michael. Especially since the reference I gave is readily available for all to read. Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply TomDiehl Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: Poconos, PA 3,948 posts Posted by TomDiehl on Friday, February 3, 2006 1:32 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. My actual opinion, as opposed to the one you fabricated for me, was posted as follows three weeks ago: QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Then as now, among consulting firms there were the blue chips -- very expensive -- second tier firms that did OK work, and cheap and dirty firms. Gibbs & Hill was the pre-eminent transportation consulting firm, having built up their reputation particularly during thirty years of work for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Gibbs & Hill along with Coverdale & Colpitts were the old line firms for this kind of work. There is neither an expression of high regard, nor your condecension of utter contempt for them. -- Michael Sol So stating someone is "the pre-eminent transportation consulting firm, having built up their reputation particularly during thirty years of work for the Pennsylvania Railroad" is "neither an expression of high regard, nor your condecension of utter contempt for them?" Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown Reply oltmannd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Atlanta 11,971 posts Posted by oltmannd on Friday, February 3, 2006 1:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by 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..... "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. Best regards, Michael Sol Correlation, in and of itself, NEVER shows cause and effect. It's a tool that can be used to support, or more properly, refute, a proposition. The lack of a correlation IS proof of a lack of cause and effect, but the converse is not true. -Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, February 3, 2006 4:17 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Correlation, in and of itself, NEVER shows cause and effect. It's a tool that can be used to support, or more properly, refute, a proposition. The lack of a correlation IS proof of a lack of cause and effect, but the converse is not true. I don't disagree with that at all. As you are no doubt aware, nearly all published studies these days that offer statistical analysis, first offer the correlation statistic as a "proof" that the opposite is not true -- that is, a relationship cannot exist without an identifiable correlation. There can be a correlation without a cause, but there cannot exist a cause without a correlation. A high correlation is evidence of causation. That evidence exists in the case of Dieselizaton and ROI. No one has been able to offer a correlation that supports any other causation. As you note, that is a statistical requrement necessary to proceed in order to argue causation for any other proposed cause. Indeed, in order to refute the presumption created by a high correlation factor, a specific cause and a specific correlation would have to be identified, otherwise, there is no proof to the contrary at all. Now, I'm not suggesting there isn't.. I did the legwork on sampling an individual railroad to suggest the correlation exists in that instance. If someone has a theory of alternate of causation, they first need to show a justifying correlation, but if they can, then surely more rigorous comparative analysis can follow. Brown's paper, of course, follows up the statistical correlation with an explanation of causation utilizing an econometric analysis. Someone needs to do that, in that fashion, to support an alternative theory. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 3, 2006 7:54 PM Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 3, 2006 10:42 PM Michael "best regards" Sol thinks I feel the way I did because I failed my PE exam. I haven't read anything in this thread that would require the reader to have a PE after his name to understand. Michael, you obviously have a PE after yours, and you're proud of it. But if having a PE makes one think the way you do, I'm mighty glad I don't have one. Oh, and I never took the exam. All I have is 43 years of working in rail motive power, rail operations, rail consulting, and government rail planning. Too bad for me. Old Timer Reply Edit solzrules Member sinceJanuary 2006 From: SE Wisconsin 1,181 posts Posted by solzrules on Friday, February 3, 2006 10:47 PM Oh yeah? Well I have a whole lot more than that!!!! Sincerely solzrules r.p.n.a.s.s.b.u.t.t.h.e.a.d.w.i.e.n.e.r.s.c.h.n.i.t.z.e.l You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in..... Reply solzrules Member sinceJanuary 2006 From: SE Wisconsin 1,181 posts Posted by solzrules on Friday, February 3, 2006 10:48 PM No, but seriously I am a genious. I have an i.q. of at least 35. You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in..... Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, February 3, 2006 10:51 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Oh yeah? Well I have a whole lot more than that!!!! Sincerely solzrules r.p.n.a.s.s.b.u.t.t.h.e.a.d.w.i.e.n.e.r.s.c.h.n.i.t.z.e.l I SAID "too bad for me" . . . What else do you want? Old Timer Reply Edit solzrules Member sinceJanuary 2006 From: SE Wisconsin 1,181 posts Posted by solzrules on Friday, February 3, 2006 11:00 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Oh yeah? Well I have a whole lot more than that!!!! Sincerely solzrules r.p.n.a.s.s.b.u.t.t.h.e.a.d.w.i.e.n.e.r.s.c.h.n.i.t.z.e.l I SAID "too bad for me" . . . What else do you want? Old Timer I WAS KIDDING! People are taking themselves to serisouly here and I think they need to have a beer and lighten up a TAD. You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in..... Reply selector Member sinceFebruary 2005 From: Vancouver Island, BC 23,330 posts Posted by selector on Saturday, February 4, 2006 12:46 AM This has gone from the arcane to the sublime to the ridiculous. "Are too!!" "Am not!!" "Are too!!" "Not!" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 4, 2006 7:41 AM [#ditto] What on Earth are they trying to prove with these 36 pages...that steam engines are more efficeint than diesles? If that was the case, why dont railraods use steamers anymore? Reply Edit AnthonyV Member sinceDecember 2005 217 posts Posted by AnthonyV on Saturday, February 4, 2006 8:08 AM From Michael Sol "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." This is incorrect. The assumption was, in fact, the complete opposite. It was assumed that one steam locomotive was equivalent to 2.41 Diesels, just as Brown did. The 27,900,000 train hour result for 1957 is not based on any assumption regarding locomotive size. It is based on the data presented in Table 3: Diesel Operating Statistics, 1953-57, Page 269 of Brown. This result is derived by dividing the train-miles by the train-miles per train-hours (i.e., average speed) for freight and passenger service, and summing the subtotals. The number of steam locomotives was based on assuming there was only one steam locomotive pulling each train instead of 2.41 Diesels. Thus, locomotive hours equal train hours. Invoking the historical high of 1,700 hour per year per steam locomotive yields the 16,400 result I reported in my last post. The average power of each steam locomotive is about 3,600 HP, not 1,500 HP as you stated. From Michael Sol: "As Brown pointed out, railway tonnage began to decline after 1920. Many steam locomotives went into storage, but their numbers are still there." Including locomotives that are in storage distorts the true number, age, power, and characteristics of locomotives actually in service. If what you say is true, then the actual fleet is smaller, probably newer, and likely more technologically advanced than when the stored units are included. Also, how is age characterized when a unit is taken out of storage? Is it characterized by years of service or by simply its chronological age? From Michael Sol: "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." This is incorrect if we are talking about AVERAGE hours per locomotive. For example, say one Northern pulls a train for eight hours. Now we have a 4-unit Diesel pull the same train for eight hours. It is true that the TOTAL locomotive hours for the Diesels would be four times that of the Northern, but the average=total/number. Then the average =4 units * 8 hrs each /4 units = 8 hours. Thus, all locomotives logged eight locomotive hours. Now, say the 4-unit Diesel set is broken up and each pull their own train for 4 hours while the Northern is in the roundhouse. The Diesels would have logged 12 locomotive hours each while the Northern logged only eight. From Michael Sol: "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." Average fleet utilization was only about 1,300 hours per year in 1915, which is before the decline to which you refer. From Michael Sol: "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." Brown's fleet is artificial. It is based on a few lines of calculations, basically equating total fleet horsepower to that of the Diesel with an adjustment for availability. An entire study would be required to determine the fleet requirements for an individual railroad, let alone for the entire industry. While it is true that Brown's 3,600 HP steam locomotive may have reflected a modern steam locomotive, the question I raised in an earlier post still stands: Could a FLEET of these locomotives totaling 11,800 satisfy the railroads' operational requirements in terms of main line freight and locals and branch lines, etc.? Also, since you state that many units were in storage, what was the actual fleet number, average age, power, and other characteristics of only those units actually in service? How would Brown's fleet be applied to a specific railroad like the Union Pacific? We know that certain sections of the Union Pacific was always in need of the most powerful locomotives like Challengers, Big Boys, and gas turbines later on. How could have Brown's 3,600-HP units have done the job? From Michael Sol: "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." Each unit of a set of four 1,500-HP Diesels pulling a train works no harder than a 6,000-HP steam locomotive pulling the same train over the same route. Also, aren't you introducing the concept of tonnage to characterize, at least in part, locomotive service, which I brought up way back? Horsepower requirements are determined solely by the train tonnage, route characteristics, and schedule. Remember, as Brown concluded, train makeup in terms of tonnage per train was independent of the type of motive power and thus did not change as a result of Dieselization. Diesels were pulling essentially the same trains as steam did in the late 1940's. My calculations are based only on the data presented in Brown's paper. The results of these calculations suggest that Diesels achieved a fleet utilization expressed in terms of annual miles and operating hours more than twice than the average steam locomotive ever did. This represents a major change in how the railroads utilized their locomotive fleets. I don't know why, but it did happen. Thanks Anthony V. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, February 4, 2006 8:13 AM Some suggested reading. The Northwestern book by Grant goes into some detail about what was going on economically during the 40's and how it affected the railroads. Briefly, 27% inflation, a national coal strike, a wage freeze for almost 3 years, labor shortages and the use of temps for back office work during the war. The freeze was lifted in '46 and wholesale prices rose 31% in the next 10 months. The railroad operating unions negotiated a 30% raise in steps from '46 to '48. The 40 hour work week also came back into play and the railway clerks retained 48 hous worth of pay for 40 hours work. The railroads were granted a modest rate increase by the ICC, but it did not fully compensate for the increased labor costs. Revenue went up in '47 & '48 but earnings fell. The decade ended in recession starting in '49. The LA&SL book by Signor goes into the benefits of diesels on the southwestern part of the UP. Diesels were able to run across the entire division, eliminated many helper districts and reduced the number of assignments for those that remained. Dynamic brakes eliminated the setting, inspection, and release of retainers on many grades and the number of brakemen was reduced from 5 to 3 on many trains. Because of seniority, enginemen who held down road assignments ended up on the extra board and didn't see road work again for many years. A reprint of tonnage ratings for the division shows that an A-B-B-A set of F3's is equal to 1.7 Challengers on Cajon from San Bernadino to Summit. The heavier FA's are equal to 2 Challengers, despite having 2000 less horespower. Steam Motive Power of the UP by Kratville and Ranks has a similar tonnage rating chart for all classes of power across all portions of the Nebraska division(p. 213). Here 3 1500 hp diesels have a slightly higher tonnage rating than a Big Boy. This book also talks about UP dieselization in general. Briefly, as the western districts were dieselized, modern steam was moved east, but on the Nebraska and Kansas divisions it didn't replace the oldest power in use. Both had many lightly built branch lines served by turn of the century 2-8-0's. What went into the storage/scrap lines were the heavier 2-8-2's, 4-6-2's, 4-8-2's, many 2-10-2's, and finally the 4-12-2's. When the divisions were dieselized in 1954, GP9's replaced everything in all types of service. From NYC steam, the last Niagras purchased in '48 cost $292,000 and these engines were running 27,000 miles/month, as good as the diesels. At this rate they would have hit 1 million miles in 3 years. From Monarchs of the West in Classic Trains, the UP FEF-1's built 10 years earlier were running 15,000 miles/month and would have taken 5.5 years to reach 1 million miles. Other than roller bearing rods, the technology on the Niagras was not dramatically different, so they would have reached the end of their service lives when measured in years much faster than the UP Northerns. That high availability diesels did the same is really no surprise. IMO, the entire decade is so atypical and full of economic distortions, that accurate forecasting is very problematic, both for the decision makers of the time or anyone using it as a basis for statistical analysis and projection. Given the rates of inflation and the 30% increase in labor costs, it's not at all surprising that railroad management jumped all over anything which could improve productivity and were willing to pay for it any way they could. Reply Edit Bergie Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,431 posts Posted by Bergie on Saturday, February 4, 2006 9:39 AM I'd find it hard to believe that anyone could either add anything constructive to this thread, nor add any more insults. Let's move on, gentlemen. Gentleman... lets all try to remember that term. We can disagree, just try to be respectful about it. Thanks, Bergie Erik Bergstrom Reply dinwitty Member sinceAugust 2004 2,844 posts Posted by dinwitty on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 7:09 PM I havent read this whole thread, but the issue of efficiency was known for steam locomotives, but the N&W western did compare steam and diesel at one time and decided to continue steam use. Experimental locomotives like turbines didnt quite pan out as expected. The ACE locomotive research was an attempt to revive steam locomotive development. A cost effective steamer today could be viable but diesels are so imbedded now its difficult to try a steam research development push. Motive power development may take other turns with alternate energy development. A versatile steamer including MUing could be done today if energy demands change, and I think some kind of constant development experimenting steam is a good thing to do and try making even a few experimental prototypes. The diesel decision was pretty much slam dang threw the steamer out without a good development continuance. One thing can't be beat, the romance of the steamer, why I own models of 'em, gotta lovem. Reply espeefoamer Member sinceNovember 2003 From: West Coast 4,122 posts Posted by espeefoamer on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 9:07 PM Two consultants,three opinions. Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 22, 2006 12:48 PM dinwitty wrote:I havent read this whole thread, but the issue of efficiency was known for steam locomotives,but the N&W western did compare steam and diesel at one time and decided to continue steam use. Experimental locomotives like turbines didnt quite pan out as expected.The ACE locomotive research was an attempt to revive steam locomotive development.A cost effective steamer today could be viable but diesels are so imbedded now its difficult to try a steam research development push. Motive power development may take other turns with alternate energy development. A versatile steamer including MUing could be done today if energy demands change, and I thinksome kind of constant development experimenting steam is a good thing to do and try makingeven a few experimental prototypes. The diesel decision was pretty much slam dang threw the steamer out without a good development continuance.One thing can't be beat, the romance of the steamer, why I own models of 'em, gotta lovem.That is the biggest thing that the diesel koolaid drinkers on this forum have missed: Many components that made diesels *superior* to steam back in the day can easily be built into a modern steam locomotive - MU'ing, dynamic braking (and traction motor boosting), use of condensing to bypass water stops, that sort of thing. Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.Advantage - Steam! Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, December 22, 2006 7:32 PM For this lifetime, I'll put my money on diesel/electric "hybrid" locomotives. Steam engines have a lot of stages and parts. The greater the number of stages or parts a machine has, the greater its probablility of failure. A complex machine can be made reliable (think jet passenger airplane) but it is expensive to make it that way. The basic components of a diesel locomotive are mature, reliable, and robust, and provide a lot of "9's" (decimal places) of reliability while remaining affordable. The next generation of locomotive will build on the existing successful elements of the diesel locomotive, just as hybrid cars have built on the success and reliability of the standard gasoline car. We will not see any new steam locomotives except in high school science fairs, low-brow publications like Popular Mechanics, or in the fantastic imaginings of railroad fanatics on internet forums... (don't they have normal lives to lead???). Following from the Green Goat web-site: The patented Green Goat® design, compared to standard diesel switchers - diesel electric and diesel hydraulic is cheaper to purchase, cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, and produces considerably less pollutants. The Green Goat® has over all capital cost savings of around 30%, and about 90% reduction in smog causing NOX (oxides of nitrogen), and a similar reduction in cancer linked particulate matter Reply Edit greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,370 posts Posted by greyhounds on Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:14 AM futuremodal wrote: Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.Advantage - Steam! Synthetic coal? "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply « First«19202122232425 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehltoday: Out of curiosity, I turned back to the "Contributors" page where they introduce the authors and give a bit of background. Seems Jerry is "an international Railroad Consultant based in Seattle WA."
QUOTE: And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion.
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."
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."
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Then as now, among consulting firms there were the blue chips -- very expensive -- second tier firms that did OK work, and cheap and dirty firms. Gibbs & Hill was the pre-eminent transportation consulting firm, having built up their reputation particularly during thirty years of work for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Gibbs & Hill along with Coverdale & Colpitts were the old line firms for this kind of work.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. Oddly enough, I haven't offered an opinion on the book at all. But it does appear you already have by way of stating you don't respect the writer, because he is a consultant, the worst kind of course, those who work for foreign railways. Isn't that the question they ask politicians now: "Were you lying yesterday, or are you lying today?" How do you really feel about consultants? Get it off your chest. Best regards. Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943 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." Got go with you, Nanaimo... Thirty-five pages, and most of the meat is in the first couple, no one is willing to give in, and it gets down to irrrational character assination. MIchael, Tom, neither one of you is gaining anything by this Three Stooges pie throwing rhetoric. When I worked for Harland Bartholomew some time ago there was an inside joke among the engineers and planners, that said, "...a consultant was anybody from out of town, that had a briefcase.". I think that the thing that got steam was the cost and maintenance of the infrastructure and population needed to keep them running. Best Regards, to all; Sam
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I've already stated how I feel about consultants. You, on the other hand, have assigned godlike infallability to one consultant, so I offered the views of another consultant. So in outline form: Two Consultants. Same topic. Different opinions.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I've already stated how I feel about consultants. You, on the other hand, have assigned godlike infallability to one consultant, so I offered the views of another consultant. So in outline form: Two Consultants. Same topic. Different opinions. The actual outline form: 1) You refuse to read one of them, because its drivel, even though you haven't read it. 2) You haven't fully read the second one yet, but you think you like him because you hope he contradicts the first one. 3) yet you know it all. That pretty well sums up your contributions. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And here I thought YOU held consultants in such high regard. I guess not. As well as no refuting discussion. My actual opinion, as opposed to the one you fabricated for me, was posted as follows three weeks ago: QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Then as now, among consulting firms there were the blue chips -- very expensive -- second tier firms that did OK work, and cheap and dirty firms. Gibbs & Hill was the pre-eminent transportation consulting firm, having built up their reputation particularly during thirty years of work for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Gibbs & Hill along with Coverdale & Colpitts were the old line firms for this kind of work. There is neither an expression of high regard, nor your condecension of utter contempt for them. -- Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by 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..... "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. Best regards, Michael Sol
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.....
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.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Perhaps you'd like to agrue that the turnpikes CAUSED industrial decay in the rust belt?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Correlation, in and of itself, NEVER shows cause and effect. It's a tool that can be used to support, or more properly, refute, a proposition. The lack of a correlation IS proof of a lack of cause and effect, but the converse is not true.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Oh yeah? Well I have a whole lot more than that!!!! Sincerely solzrules r.p.n.a.s.s.b.u.t.t.h.e.a.d.w.i.e.n.e.r.s.c.h.n.i.t.z.e.l
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules Oh yeah? Well I have a whole lot more than that!!!! Sincerely solzrules r.p.n.a.s.s.b.u.t.t.h.e.a.d.w.i.e.n.e.r.s.c.h.n.i.t.z.e.l I SAID "too bad for me" . . . What else do you want? Old Timer
dinwitty wrote:I havent read this whole thread, but the issue of efficiency was known for steam locomotives,but the N&W western did compare steam and diesel at one time and decided to continue steam use. Experimental locomotives like turbines didnt quite pan out as expected.The ACE locomotive research was an attempt to revive steam locomotive development.A cost effective steamer today could be viable but diesels are so imbedded now its difficult to try a steam research development push. Motive power development may take other turns with alternate energy development. A versatile steamer including MUing could be done today if energy demands change, and I thinksome kind of constant development experimenting steam is a good thing to do and try makingeven a few experimental prototypes. The diesel decision was pretty much slam dang threw the steamer out without a good development continuance.One thing can't be beat, the romance of the steamer, why I own models of 'em, gotta lovem.
That is the biggest thing that the diesel koolaid drinkers on this forum have missed: Many components that made diesels *superior* to steam back in the day can easily be built into a modern steam locomotive - MU'ing, dynamic braking (and traction motor boosting), use of condensing to bypass water stops, that sort of thing. Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.
Advantage - Steam!
For this lifetime, I'll put my money on diesel/electric "hybrid" locomotives. Steam engines have a lot of stages and parts. The greater the number of stages or parts a machine has, the greater its probablility of failure. A complex machine can be made reliable (think jet passenger airplane) but it is expensive to make it that way. The basic components of a diesel locomotive are mature, reliable, and robust, and provide a lot of "9's" (decimal places) of reliability while remaining affordable. The next generation of locomotive will build on the existing successful elements of the diesel locomotive, just as hybrid cars have built on the success and reliability of the standard gasoline car. We will not see any new steam locomotives except in high school science fairs, low-brow publications like Popular Mechanics, or in the fantastic imaginings of railroad fanatics on internet forums... (don't they have normal lives to lead???).
Following from the Green Goat web-site:
The patented Green Goat® design, compared to standard diesel switchers - diesel electric and diesel hydraulic is cheaper to purchase, cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, and produces considerably less pollutants.
futuremodal wrote: Furthermore, because of steam's inherent fuel flexibility, you can now run on such things as synthetic coal or coal-water slurry, very cheap fuel compared to petroleum or biodiesel.Advantage - Steam!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.