QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV It is possible to estimate the required size of the steam road fleet by using locomotive and train hours. Based on the data in Brown's paper fleet I estimated total and average locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945. Average annual steam road fleet locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945 ranged from about 1,200 to 1,700 hours per year, The 1,700 hours occurred during WWII. In contrast, the Diesel road fleet averaged over 3,800 hours per year in the mid 1950's.
QUOTE: I estimated that 27,900,000 Diesel train hours were logged in 1957. Assuming one steam locomotive per train and 1,700 hours per locomotive per year, I estimate that the number of steam road locomotives required would be 16,400 units, not the 11,800 that Brown estimated.
QUOTE: The result of these calculations show that the steam road fleet utilization was rather poor over the 35-year time period considered. As with the fleet mileage results discussed in my earlier post, something dramatic occurred after Dieselization, as the Diesel compiled more than twice the number of annual operating hours than historic steam levels.
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 MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history. I believe Mr. Miller stated: Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus. Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'." I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one. We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said. I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately. You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library. You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies. Why do you persist? Because the lies are yours. The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum. I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question. Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads. You lied about your sources. Then you argued that Brown's papaer was never actually published. Now your'e worried about the drive. Every hear about interlibrary loan? Not much to misunderstand there about multiple pages of complete fabrications of studies you said you knew about. You did not ask about Brown's study. You stated you couldn't be bothered to read "such drivel." You justified that on the basis of the "many" studies which you said "all" -- repeat, "all"-- contradicted Brown. You fabricated every argument on the basis of non-exstent studies. I repeatedly asked you about them, and in between insults, you repeatedly stated you knew what they said. But you didn't know any of that. You made it all up. Page after page of fabricated drivel, lie after lie, in pursuit of some weird agenda you have. Now we find the whole problem really is that you don't like to drive. Whew. -- Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history. I believe Mr. Miller stated: Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus. Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'." I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one. We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said. I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately. You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library. You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies. Why do you persist? Because the lies are yours. The questioning of the library reference at Penn State was posted as I read the entries in sequence. Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley) is MUCH closer to me than University Park (State College). I'm not going on a four hour drive (one way) to find out you can't read a report any better than you can read posts in this forum. I asked QUESTIONS about Brown's methods and what he considered, since you were (at the time) the only person that made ANY reference that they had read this report. Now that we've seen an input from someone else who seems to have read the report, with MUCH difference in the statements than yours, it brings YOUR interpretation into question. Sorry, but your resorting to juvenile name calling brings your statements into DEEPER question. When you lack facts or REAL answers, you can always call us a bunch of poopie heads.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history. I believe Mr. Miller stated: Brown's paper is in volume 175, so it is in the UP ANNEX, but it is not at the Lehigh Valley campus. Now, that was posted, you ignored it just to continue to try and manipulate this into "it wasn't just handed to me, TomDiehl, therefore it is an obscure report, because that is my definition of 'not accessible'." I asked you to post any one of the hundreds of reports that you claimed proved Brown wrong, and you couldn't post a one. Then you admitted you lied about that, you hadn't seen a one. We wasted pages and pages about your contentions about what those "studies" said. I cited my source. I reprinted several pages from that source., and I represented both its existence and its findings accurately. You have done nothing on this thead but lie about the sources of your contentions, lie about their existence, and now about how tough it is to go to the library. You have wasted everyone's time on a bunch of outright lies. Why do you persist?
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol "Not readily accessible" means that the whole report is open only to your narrow interpretation. Penn State in Fogelsville (Lehigh Valley, near Allentown) only makes such reports available to students. Which seems to emphasize the "not readily accessible" claim. Sorry, but the truth is hurting your interpretation of history.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash. What you actually said was QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Once again, you have attempted to substitute a complete lie for what you actually stated. This is a habit with you. -- Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.
QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash.
QUOTE: Originally posted by lonewoof I do not want to show favoritism here -- but I am curious: Tom Diehl, Old Timer, others -- is it your contention that railroads' ROI DID NOT DECREASE during the period while they were dieselizing? or that it DID decrease, but that the decrease was caused by SOMETHING ELSE? If so, WHAT?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite Who paid for Brown's study. I have never seen a consultant produce a document without someone paying for it. And whoever paid for it could determine what end result was desired. PRR mistrusted consultants so much that when they realized that they needed to go outside their own corporation to determine whether the electrification should be replaced by diesel electrics or retained they hired three independent agencies to give three independent reports. PRR was afraid that the consultants would merely tell them what the consultants thought that PRR wanted to hear and by hiring multiple agencies at least one of them should produce a reliable report. If an organization who had all of the data (not just what was published) in front of them and could ask the tough questions of the consultant(s) didn't trust the consultants to give completely straight answers rather than being expensive yes men, how can we at this date be certain that whoever wrote the check that paid Brown didn't let him know what outcome was expected?
QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV Brown compared the actual costs of the mid-1950's Diesel fleet to a hypothetical steam fleet in terms of first cost, finance charges, repair costs, facilities costs, etc. For the road fleet, Brown estimated that the first costs of his hypothetical fleet would be about $1.93 billion, compared to the $2.76 billion actually spent on the Diesel fleet. He apparently assumed that the steam purchase would be financed since he includes interest on undepreciated equipment. One important aspect of Brown's analysis is the size of the steam fleet needed to replace Diesels. Brown estimated the size of the steam fleet by equating horsepower to the total available road Diesel power and adjusting for the higher power of each steam unit and lower availability of steam. He does not define the term availability. For the road locomotive fleet, the result is that 11,800 3600-HP steam units were equivalent to 18,900 1,500-HP Diesel units. As far as I can tell, Brown did not consider how these locomotives would be utilized to meet the railroad's operational requirements. It is possible to estimate the required size of the steam road fleet by using locomotive and train hours. Based on the data in Brown's paper fleet I estimated total and average locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945. Average annual steam road fleet locomotive hours from 1915 through 1945 ranged from about 1,200 to 1,700 hours per year, The 1,700 hours occurred during WWII. In contrast, the Diesel road fleet averaged over 3,800 hours per year in the mid 1950's. I estimated that 27,900,000 Diesel train hours were logged in 1957. Assuming one steam locomotive per train and 1,700 hours per locomotive per year, I estimate that the number of steam road locomotives required would be 16,400 units, not the 11,800 that Brown estimated. Assuming the fleet average could be increased to 2,000 hours, the number of steam locomotives would be 13,950. Brown's hypothetical fleet would have to log 2,360 hours annually, which is a 39 percent increase over the historic maximum of 1,700 hours. Is this a realistic increase from a system-wide perspective (not an individual locomotive basis)? The required investment in road locomotives would be $350,000,000 to $732,000,000 more that what Brown estimated. Expenditures for facilities, repairs, manpower, and finance charges would be additional. The result of these calculations show that the steam road fleet utilization was rather poor over the 35-year time period considered. As with the fleet mileage results discussed in my earlier post, something dramatic occurred after Dieselization, as the Diesel compiled more than twice the number of annual operating hours than historic steam levels. Was this a result of utilizing old, technologically obsolete steam power? What was the average steam locomotive doing the remaining 7,000 hours per year? Was it because the steam locomotive was inherently less versatile than the Diesel, requiring more locomotives? How did the variable horsepower characteristic of steam affect its utilization? What operational factors affected locomotive utilization? Note that the results of these calculations are consistent with DaveKlepper's anecdote about the GP7 doing the work of several steam units. Thanks Anthony V.
Remember: In South Carolina, North is southeast of Due West... HIOAg /Bill
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Penn State Engineering Library (Lehigh Valley): Proceedings (Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Great Britain)). Publisher: The Institution, Pub date: 1849-1982. Pages: v. : LEHIGHVLY Location: STACKS-LV --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5 Summary holdings: .182 pt.3B 1967/68 UP-ANNEX Location: ANNEX --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5 Summary holdings: v.1 1847-v.148 no.3 1943, v.149 1943-v.183 1968/69. The reference, for the fourth time: H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961). Whether it is hard for Engineering students, as you claim, it wasn't so difficult to simply access the card catalog from several thousand miles away. Considering four repetitions of a citation, and its ready access through a card catalog, your remark that it "Isn't published anywhere" leads me to suspect something about it, and it isn't very kind.. -- Michael Sol Funny, the reference I quoted was from a student at Penn State (note the State College address in his post). Since State College is the MAIN campus of Penn State, and the Lehigh Valley is at least 150 miles away, "readily accessible" still doesn't apply. Still a wash.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash. Penn State Engineering Library (Lehigh Valley): Proceedings (Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Great Britain)). Publisher: The Institution, Pub date: 1849-1982. Pages: v. : LEHIGHVLY Location: STACKS-LV --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5 Summary holdings: .182 pt.3B 1967/68 UP-ANNEX Location: ANNEX --- Call no.: TJ1 .I5 Summary holdings: v.1 1847-v.148 no.3 1943, v.149 1943-v.183 1968/69. The reference, for the fourth time: H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961). Whether it is hard for Engineering students, as you claim, it wasn't so difficult to simply access the card catalog from several thousand miles away. Considering four repetitions of a citation, and its ready access through a card catalog, your remark that it "Isn't published anywhere" leads me to suspect something about it, and it isn't very kind.. -- Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The one YOU "know about" and keep refering to isn't published anywhere, either. So the "absence of proof" claim is a wash.
QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Maybe not obscure, but definately not readily available. Even to Engineering students.
QUOTE: So the library at Pennsylvania State University, one of the leading engineering colleges in the country, would have to research to see if they even have it (or it even exists).
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The railroads were playing a serious game of catch-up on all these factors after WW2. Were you there? Or are you just making this up too? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl The railroads were playing a serious game of catch-up on all these factors after WW2.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Maybe not obscure, but definately not readily available. Even to Engineering students.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm sorry, I must have missed this, where was it that you posted the link to the Brown study? This is why this thread is now so long. This is the third time posting this information: H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961). For professionals, this is the standard citation method, and for professionals, they know where to find it and how to get it. And they will understand what it says. Best regards, Michael Sol Sorry, tried clicking on that link but it doesn't work. That's because it's not a link, it's an underline. It is customary to underline, or italicize, titles of books or proceedings when publishing bibliographic references. Why don't you try google or maybe go to a local university library. Most old journal articles are not yet available online. It takes a lot of work to scan all that stuff in. I searched on Penn State's library page, and their copies of Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers for volumes older than 1969 are in the library annex and not in the stacks, so it will be hard to get to that volume. It looks like modern volumes of Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have been split into more than a dozen parts. Part F is dedicated to rail and rapid transit publications. Now fight nice, folks. If there's one thing I learned from Monty Python it's... An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. So the library at Pennsylvania State University, one of the leading engineering colleges in the country, would have to research to see if they even have it (or it even exists). Maybe not obscure, but definately not readily available. Even to Engineering students.
QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm sorry, I must have missed this, where was it that you posted the link to the Brown study? This is why this thread is now so long. This is the third time posting this information: H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961). For professionals, this is the standard citation method, and for professionals, they know where to find it and how to get it. And they will understand what it says. Best regards, Michael Sol Sorry, tried clicking on that link but it doesn't work. That's because it's not a link, it's an underline. It is customary to underline, or italicize, titles of books or proceedings when publishing bibliographic references. Why don't you try google or maybe go to a local university library. Most old journal articles are not yet available online. It takes a lot of work to scan all that stuff in. I searched on Penn State's library page, and their copies of Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers for volumes older than 1969 are in the library annex and not in the stacks, so it will be hard to get to that volume. It looks like modern volumes of Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have been split into more than a dozen parts. Part F is dedicated to rail and rapid transit publications. Now fight nice, folks. If there's one thing I learned from Monty Python it's... An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not just contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm sorry, I must have missed this, where was it that you posted the link to the Brown study? This is why this thread is now so long. This is the third time posting this information: H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961). For professionals, this is the standard citation method, and for professionals, they know where to find it and how to get it. And they will understand what it says. Best regards, Michael Sol Sorry, tried clicking on that link but it doesn't work.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm sorry, I must have missed this, where was it that you posted the link to the Brown study? This is why this thread is now so long. This is the third time posting this information: H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961). For professionals, this is the standard citation method, and for professionals, they know where to find it and how to get it. And they will understand what it says. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I'm sorry, I must have missed this, where was it that you posted the link to the Brown study?
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 MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper We have been arguing over RAPID dieselization. True, many railroads diesalized nearly overnight. The Norfolk and Western for one! But the UP seems to have taken a rather long time about it, ditto the Brulington. They started a dieselization program as soon as they could, right after WWII (and of course they already had some diesels on the property), but when were the final non-fan-trip fires pulled? About 15 or more years later! Meanwhile, they held steam in reserve for peaks, etc. Didn't they know what they were doing? Dave, I think that's the whole point of doing a study. You look at the results of important decisions. Admittedly, there is a institutional bias by management to justify its decisions. Perhaps there is an institutional bias on the part of railfans as well. Management reviews of itself, OldTimer suggests, are inherently accurate. An independent study by someone such as H.F. Brown, is denounced by OldTimer as biased. A thorough study published in a leading professional engineering journal is denounced on the basis of something someone who spends his time crouched over a model railroad read in Trains or in Railfan and Railroader. It is attacked on the specific basis that it came to conclusions different than "every railroad engineering department in the country" who "all did studies" and who "all" disagreed with Brown. Even though the claimant had never read a single one and no railroader has been able to be forthcoming with one. That, in this game, is not seen as odd all by itself. You would have expected the professional journals to be full of refutations of Brown. Instead there was a strange silence, as ROI's contiinued to decline. It doesn't matter what industry, anyone who believes that management studies by management about their own decisions are accurate and not self-serving needs their head examined. OldTimer needs his head examined. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper We have been arguing over RAPID dieselization. True, many railroads diesalized nearly overnight. The Norfolk and Western for one! But the UP seems to have taken a rather long time about it, ditto the Brulington. They started a dieselization program as soon as they could, right after WWII (and of course they already had some diesels on the property), but when were the final non-fan-trip fires pulled? About 15 or more years later! Meanwhile, they held steam in reserve for peaks, etc. Didn't they know what they were doing?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.