Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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?

State owned railroads pose interesting questions, no doubt. Most of them tended to electrify.

I have no more idea why the Chinese did what they did with their state-owned railroads, or when they did it, or why they did it, than I do why they decided to put a "steel mill in every back yard" during the Great Leap Forward or why they starved 80 million people to death nor do I assume they were the result of rational decision-making processes.

Best regards, Michael Sol

OK So you're saying that since this goes against your thought process, it must be incorrect and not worth your consideration. Whatever.

I am saying that I have no reason to believe a state-owned railway system in a developing country for which I have no data presents anything particularly relevant that I can discuss in a discussion regarding private railroads in a developed country for which we have tons of data.

I have nothing on China, and, notwithstanding your generous invitation to speculate about cheap labor there and its effect on dieselization, I will spare you my completely uninformed diagnosis about what it means since I don't know, nor do I have a reason to be interested in it because of the paucity of data.

If you know something about China we need to know, by all means don't be coy.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

James, go easy.

Mr. Sol,
Let nobody ever call you a man without vision. Please show some specifics, though.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

Very well put Murphy. I think what may be part of the problem with what he is saying is this. Let's take a look at the broader scope of the dieselization period (1940's-1950's). WWII provided a large increase in the traffic for the railroads, no matter what the railroads did, when the war there would be no war traffic. Linked with what I said earlier about the vastly rising number of cars and the dropping passenger trains it is not surprising that profits were down for the railroads. I am not arguing with his facts, but with his conclusion based on the facts. What is the evidence that the diesels caused this loss of revenue, that it wasn't inevitable?

[Modelcar]

...Michael....The shifting economy, interstate highways and various other realities impacted railroads bottom line...and as I said before...professonal railroaders in management would have to itemize many more situations....The massive east coast area economy was changing and so were the heavy industry haulage previously available to railroads.....I'm sure you have heard of the "rust belt" stretching from the mid west to the east.......

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

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?

State owned railroads pose interesting questions, no doubt. Most of them tended to electrify.

I have no more idea why the Chinese did what they did with their state-owned railroads, or when they did it, or why they did it, than I do why they decided to put a "steel mill in every back yard" during the Great Leap Forward or why they starved 80 million people to death nor do I assume they were the result of rational decision-making processes.

Best regards, Michael Sol

OK So you're saying that since this goes against your thought process, it must be incorrect and not worth your consideration. Whatever.

[Anonymous]

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

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

Michael.....The "other" factors happening at the time of change over from steam to diesel has to be a reality...but I'm not a professonal railroader so we'll leave someone with proper expertise to delve into the specifics...We as ordinay fans realize there was all kinds of factors besides the change over taking place and will always be taking place in any given time slot.....

Which explains .... what?

Dieselization was the biggest single investment decision ever made by American railroads. And the rates of return declined. Now, if the impact was positive, from this huge investment decision with so many ramifications, and the rates of return still declined, then something enormous must have been happening to more than offset the positive effects of dieselization.

You'd think someone would have noticed something that had more effect on railroads than dieselization, even to drag earnings down to half of what they were, when, it is proposed, earnings should have increased dramatically.

Whatever it was, it must have been really, really something.

But no one knows what it was.

The much-vaunted "bottom line" seems pretty clear as to what happened.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

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?

State owned railroads pose interesting questions, no doubt. Most of them tended to electrify.

I have no more idea why the Chinese did what they did with their state-owned railroads, or when they did it, or why they did it, than I do why they decided to put a "steel mill in every back yard" during the Great Leap Forward or why they starved 80 million people to death nor do I assume they were the result of rational decision-making processes.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Modelcar]

Michael.....The "other" factors happening at the time of change over from steam to diesel has to be a reality...but I'm not a professonal railroader so we'll leave someone with proper expertise to delve into the specifics...We as ordinay fans realize there was all kinds of factors besides the change over taking place and will always be taking place in any given time slot.....

[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?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by timz

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The 22-million BTU's would deliver 1730-Hp to the drawbar in the steam locomotive (1.8-cents/Hp) and 3300-Hp to the drawbar in the diesel loco (7.5 cents/Hp).

So, it would certainly be cost effective from an operating standpoint...

From a fuel standpoint, you mean.

By the way-- did you mean 22 million BTUs per hour, or what?

Well, a BTU is a BTU.

A ton of typical steaming coal contains about 22 million BTUs of energy, regardless of whether you burn the coal in an hour, a day, or a month. One horsepower is approximately equal to 2540 BTUs per hour.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

The 22-million BTU's would deliver 1730-Hp to the drawbar in the steam locomotive (1.8-cents/Hp) and 3300-Hp to the drawbar in the diesel loco (7.5 cents/Hp).

So, it would certainly be cost effective from an operating standpoint...

From a fuel standpoint, you mean.

By the way-- did you mean 22 million BTUs per hour, or what?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by timz

"Now, railroads were demonstrably worse off at the end of the dieselization process. Is that a good support for the argument that dieselization was a positive financial benefit to railroads? Where then, was the financial benefit?"

So would they benefit now by reverting to steam?

Well, that would require financing a whole new set of equipment, which was the problem in the first place. Making the same mistake twice doesn't necessarily fix the first one.

Technically it is doable, and from an operating standpoint, would be substantially cheaper to operate.

Compared to the 6% thermal efficiency of "old steam," modern high-pressure uniflow steam engines are yielding efficiencies up to 21%. Most of the components to build an efficient and state of the art modern, heavy-haul steam-turbine-electric locomotive already exist, offering outputs as high as 7500-Hp or even 15, 000-Hp.

A ton of coal costing $28 holds an energy content of 22-million to 26-million BTU's of energy, 20% of which could theoretically be delivered to the drawbar as horsepower in a heavy-haul modern steam turbine locomotive. Diesel fuel costs some $1.80 per gallon (130,000 BTU's). Diesel fuel at 22-million BTU's would cost $304.60, 36% of which would be delivered to the drawbar.

The 22-million BTU's would deliver 1730-Hp to the drawbar in the steam locomotive (1.8-cents/Hp) and 3300-Hp to the drawbar in the diesel loco (7.5 cents/Hp).

So, it would certainly be cost effective from an operating standpoint, but somebody has to market one to get a price, and of course EMD's big advantage early on in the diesel-changeover was GMAC.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...As this change over process was taking place there were other factors involved determining the financial progress or lack of in the railroad business....

Please be specific, or that is no explanation at all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[timz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by route_rock

two SD-70 macs to drag a coal train up albia hill at a crawl.a 2-10-4 dragging a 10,000 ton train up the same hil at about 30. I can hear you guys now ,thats 8,000 tons less,ahh touche but they had fricton bearing's. Not the nice roller bearings that todays power house junkers get to pull.

Probably he's talking about Albia, Iowa, a climb of 4.8 miles or so, around 0.6 to 0.65% compensated average. And apparently he means the 2-10-4 hit the bottom of the hill at 30 and the SD70s go over the top at a crawl. But did the Q run 10000 ton trains eastward across Iowa? Coal trains? If coal, where'd it come from?

[Modelcar]

...As this change over process was taking place there were other factors involved determining the financial progress or lack of in the railroad business....

[timz]

"Now, railroads were demonstrably worse off at the end of the dieselization process. Is that a good support for the argument that dieselization was a positive financial benefit to railroads? Where then, was the financial benefit?"

So would they benefit now by reverting to steam?

[Modelcar]

...Yes, nothing like that.

[Anonymous]

I meant compared to the great depression.

[Modelcar]

....Economy had it's problems in the 50's too....1954 and 1958 were recession times.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting, this all begs one question. Backwards as they are, what took the chinese so long to change to diesels?

I also wanted to make the point on profit, passenger service took a big hit in the 1950's when more people could afford cars due to the good ecomonomy.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

Sol,
Yes there was a dramatic downturn in profit durning the process, but the cost-benifit analysis the companies did said that would be ok, as you'd gain many manhours back from the process. crews went from 3 to 2, maintence offices were shut down and mechanics fires. all in all, you should look at the number of employess pre-deiselization and post and you'll see where the companies profited.

Seen the studies, did a couple myself. The declining employment numbers was a phenomenon that began in 1945 and continued unabated to this day; nearly the same rate throughout the entire period, even though dieselization only happened once. The problem. however, is a financial one. The machines were far more expensive than steam; the economic service lives were substantially shorter, and nearly everything associated with dieselization was financed, placing an unprecedented financial burden on American railways.

Apparently, they couldn't fire people fast enough.

"....they offered lower maintenance costs,...."

Over the life span of a road diesel, this did not prove to be true, notwithstanding strenuous public relations efforts to the contrary. A highly complex machine with many moving parts, the failure of any one of which can lead to catastrophic failure, does what highly complex machines do when they age: they fail. Of the three motive power types, at 8 years, an electric has about one-third the maintenance costs per hp as a road diesel, and a steam engine was about half of the cost per hp. The maintenance curves for both steam and electric at that point were for practical purposes flat, whereas the diesel hp maintenance cost curve kept rising at an ever increasing rate: usually compelling the decision to replace the power with a new generation.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Sol,
Yes there was a dramatic downturn in profit durning the process, but the cost-benifit analysis the companies did said that would be ok, as you'd gain many manhours back from the process. crews went from 3 to 2, maintence offices were shut down and mechanics fires. all in all, you should look at the number of employess pre-deiselization and post and you'll see where the companies profited.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

So, as several of us have said, in one way or another, the diesel made economic sense to corporations that had a duty to supply returns on investment to shareholders. That's it. The bottom line. If the Company was going broke, and diesels were the clear saviours, what was so hard to figure out?

Well, the "bottom line" shows something else if you actually take the time to look at it.

As railroads dieselized, their rates of return fell. By the time they had fully dieselized, they had less than half the rate of return as at the beginning of the process. Those railroads that dieselized fastest had rates of return that fell the fastest.

The fact that the reality is exactly the opposite of what you state begs the question as to "what is so hard to figure out"....

Best regards, Michael Sol

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:16112129&ctrlInfo=Round18%3AMode18c%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=

"...Why diesels replaced steam. Compelling economics ultimately forced the replacement of steam by the diesel. Even though diesels were more costly than steam engines in terms of purchase price and dollars per horsepower (the average unit costing about $160,000 after World War II), they offered lower maintenance costs, longer hours of service, and lower fuel consumption. And, they could be operated in multiple-unit without extra crews. It was their impact on the bottom line--especially in an era when competition from trucking and airlines was growing--that finally made them irresistible to railroad management. "

Or, if you prefer another approach, see http://www.oduport.org/RAILPORT.htm

I could keep looking for more support, but I suppose you could too.

Regards,

-Crandell

I always look to the actual numbers of the railroads, that is, the final results of financial statements actually filed by railroads, to assess these claims. When they match, they match, when they don't they don't.

The interesting part is when people insist that one thing happened, and don't explain why the opposite actually happpened. Now, railroads were demonstrably worse off at the end of the dieselization process. Is that a good support for the argument that dieselization was a positive financial benefit to railroads? Where then, was the financial benefit?

Isn't there a burden to show it, as opposed to the tangible evidence that it didn't happen?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Tulyar15]

For me, what clinched understanding why diesels supplanted were some figures contained in Kenneth J. Robertson's book "The Great Western Gas Turbine locos: a myth exploded".

Whilst the primary purpose of Mr Robertson's book is to explain why the two gas turbine locos ordered by the Great Western Railway in Britain proved to be a blind alley, in doing so Mr. Robertson quotes some interesting facts and figures concerning not only these two locos but the two LMS Prototype diesel loco's, #10000/1, which were the first main line diesel locos to run in Britain. The LMS expected them to match the performance of their highly successful "Black 5" 4-6-0. In terms of fuel consumption figures quoted by Mr. Robertson, the diesels beat the "Black 5" hands down. On top of that, the lower labour costs and greater availability meant it was no contest. But the real clincher was that the two diesels could also be coupled in multiple and when so doing match the performance of an LMS "Coronation" Pacific which most UK railfans would agree were probably the best express passenger steam locos ever to run in Britain.

As for the gas turbines locos their fuel costs were on a par with a Black 5, though they would also have the same labour saving costs advantages as a diesel. So the deciding factor in favour of the diesel was fuel economy.

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

So, as several of us have said, in one way or another, the diesel made economic sense to corporations that had a duty to supply returns on investment to shareholders. That's it. The bottom line. If the Company was going broke, and diesels were the clear saviours, what was so hard to figure out?

Well, the "bottom line" shows something else if you actually take the time to look at it.

As railroads dieselized, their rates of return fell. By the time they had fully dieselized, they had less than half the rate of return as at the beginning of the process. Those railroads that dieselized fastest had rates of return that fell the fastest.

The fact that the reality is exactly the opposite of what you state begs the question as to "what is so hard to figure out"....

Best regards, Michael Sol

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:16112129&ctrlInfo=Round18%3AMode18c%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=

"...Why diesels replaced steam. Compelling economics ultimately forced the replacement of steam by the diesel. Even though diesels were more costly than steam engines in terms of purchase price and dollars per horsepower (the average unit costing about $160,000 after World War II), they offered lower maintenance costs, longer hours of service, and lower fuel consumption. And, they could be operated in multiple-unit without extra crews. It was their impact on the bottom line--especially in an era when competition from trucking and airlines was growing--that finally made them irresistible to railroad management. "

Or, if you prefer another approach, see http://www.oduport.org/RAILPORT.htm

I could keep looking for more support, but I suppose you could too.

Regards,

-Crandell

[Anonymous]

I can see us fracturing into "Steam" and "Diesel."

[Modelcar]

WWII was the "engine" of innovation....it brought along changes faster across the board. I believe this applied to steam engines being changed over to diesel power much quicker than would have "normally" been done.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

So, as several of us have said, in one way or another, the diesel made economic sense to corporations that had a duty to supply returns on investment to shareholders. That's it. The bottom line. If the Company was going broke, and diesels were the clear saviours, what was so hard to figure out?

Well, the "bottom line" shows something else if you actually take the time to look at it.

As railroads dieselized, their rates of return fell. By the time they had fully dieselized, they had less than half the rate of return as at the beginning of the process. Those railroads that dieselized fastest had rates of return that fell the fastest.

The fact that the reality is exactly the opposite of what you state begs the question as to "what is so hard to figure out"....

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

route_rock

I think you got it wrong. Its actually two 2-10-4 barely crawling versus 1 sd70mac flying at 30 mph.

Unless you want to convince me that your 2-10-4 can do thr job that two locos equivalent to big-boy cannot do.

When FT diesel first appeared it was better or equivalent then steam in every category.

Just look:
Big Boy had 135000lb tractive effort and ~6000 hp. Weighed 540 tons. (11.11 hppt)
ABBA set of FT was 5400 hp and 480 tons. IT also did about 240000 lb of tractive effort. (11.25 hppt).

It was a completely different quality with much lower costs and elimination of water stops (which yields giant fuel savings). When F7 was first availible it was game over - steam lost, the new king was elected.