QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol How does one know the condition of that fleet? From the maintenance curves generated from the maintenance costs recorded by the railroads themselves. They don't show a change indicating "worn out" power. The condition of motive power can be guaged accurately by that method. Or, if you like, that "worn out power" had lower maintenance costs than new Diesels. My conclusion is that the "modern" Steam fleet was not worn out. There was plenty of money flowing during the war years to keep the motive power in top shape. The statistical record bears that out. Your conclusion, I am sure based on a careful examination of the relevant data, may be different. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels? Well, why would they? They had mostly all Steam fleets. They were downsizing rapidly. It was a historic opportunity to phase out older locomotives and retain the modern, high efficiency units supplemented by ongoing purchases. The post-War drop in tonnage didn't require an all new motive power fleet, at a substantially higher cost per hp than Steam. That alone is a significant factor. If railroads had decided to purchase an entirely new Steam fleet, sure, they undoubtedly would have had to finance the purchases, even though at a significantly lower overall cost, but why? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels?
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 HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators. Best regards, Michael Sol Maybe you should Google HVAC and see how many pages you need to go through before you DON'T get Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning. I gave up after 3 pages. I don't get my information on the railroad industry from Google. Best regards, Michael Sol So you make up your own acronyms? And assign your own names to them? No. HVDC and HVAC are standard terms in general as well as railway electrification. See below for a typical reference: http://www.abb.com/global/seitp/seitp202.nsf/0/7DDFBC94976A73B5C1256E840040E044 ABB marks 50th anniversary of pioneering HVDC technology 2004-05-06 - Key interconnector technology supports power grid reliability Zurich, Switzerland, May 6, 2004 – ABB, the leading power and automation technology group, today marked the 50th anniversary of its pioneering of HVDC (high-voltage direct current) technology with a series of events ... .. The benefits of HVDC technology have received special attention in the wake of the blackouts in 2003. Compared to traditional high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) power lines, HVDC lines cannot be overloaded. With HVDC, the power flow can be controlled to ensure maximum power grid stability. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators. Best regards, Michael Sol Maybe you should Google HVAC and see how many pages you need to go through before you DON'T get Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning. I gave up after 3 pages. I don't get my information on the railroad industry from Google. Best regards, Michael Sol So you make up your own acronyms? And assign your own names to them?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators. Best regards, Michael Sol Maybe you should Google HVAC and see how many pages you need to go through before you DON'T get Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning. I gave up after 3 pages. I don't get my information on the railroad industry from Google. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators. Best regards, Michael Sol Maybe you should Google HVAC and see how many pages you need to go through before you DON'T get Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning. I gave up after 3 pages.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators. Best regards, Michael Sol In my line I must design the HVAC for our clean rooms, and it is Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. Perhaps you should subscribe to HVAC magazine and see what it is about.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels? 1) The railroads were, in fact, able to buy new locomotives during WW2.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol After WW2, when the railroads were able to buy new locomotives again, where did the "funds on hand" or "trust or other fashion" come from that they could use to purchase new steam, but magically wasn't there if they decided to purchase diesels?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Michael Sol sayeth: "Your conclusion that Steam would have been purchased by financing as Diesel was is not supported in any way by the developed record, nor by any experience you seem to have in the industry." It may be misleading to you. Michael, you've spent heaven knows how many hours on this thread, and I wonder what your payoff is. Is it that you can get fed up with the rest of us and stick out a needle hoping we'll say "ouch"? I don't know what business you're in, nor what your experience is, and from reading your stuff it doesn't make any difference. But if you're in some kind of business, and you spend this much unproductive time at it, it's clear you must be living on either unemployment or inherited wealth. What this whole thing still comes down to is that you've taken a specious assumption, backed up by a consultant who has taken some figures and massaged them to his and your satisfaction, and presented an even more specious conclusion. Are you still going to keep at it? Aren't you tired of it yet? Best regards, Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Michael Sol asserteth: "Your conclusion that Steam would have been purchased by financing as Diesel was is not supported in any way by the developed record, nor by any experience you seem to have in the industry." I can see, Michael, that you never were around Erwin, Tennessee, to crawl over a bunch of 4-6-6-4s that couldn't be scrapped by a dieselized Clinchfield because their equipment trusts weren't paid off. You claim that you don't get your information on the railroad industry from Google. Well, my friend, you'd probably be better off if you did. Best regards, Old Timer I am sure you will continue to supply everyone with Google's latest. The comment "Your conclusion that Steam would have been purchased by financing as Diesel was is not supported in any way by the developed record ..." while taken out of context, seems to be an SOP on your part. "As Diesel was" means in the fashion noted from the ICC reports: that whereas most Steam was in fact purchased outright, most Diesel was purchased on credit. In instances where Steam was purchased by trust or some other fashion, they were invariably paid off long before the economic service life was reached, whereas with Diesel the opposite was most often true. That fundamentally changed the financial dynamic of the rail industry. At best, you make a misleading observation, and you know it. An exception neither proves the rule, nor does it illuminate the conversation. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Michael Sol asserteth: "Your conclusion that Steam would have been purchased by financing as Diesel was is not supported in any way by the developed record, nor by any experience you seem to have in the industry." I can see, Michael, that you never were around Erwin, Tennessee, to crawl over a bunch of 4-6-6-4s that couldn't be scrapped by a dieselized Clinchfield because their equipment trusts weren't paid off. You claim that you don't get your information on the railroad industry from Google. Well, my friend, you'd probably be better off if you did. Best regards, Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol It is not an assumption that railroads, for the most part, did not finance steam. It is not an assumption that most diesels were financed. The "availability" of funds was not a determining factor since debt invariably "reduces" the availability of funds unless it purchases greater efficiency, which cannot be found in the statistical record. It doesn't matter how often steam was overhauled, that information is contained in the statistical record of repair costs maintained by the railroads and reported to the ICC, for a direct comparison with Diesel. Your conclusion that Steam would have been purchased by financing as Diesel was is not supported in any way by the developed record, nor by any experience you seem to have in the industry. Best regards, Michael Sol
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Of course, this makes the assumption that all diesels would be bought on credit and steam or electric would be paid for in full regardless of when they were bought. There's no reason to assume that steam or electric locomotives, bought after World War 2, would be purchased with existing assets and not financed or leased. The railroad would have to borrow the money no matter which locomotive type was bought. Since few road diesels were bought before WW2, there's little comparison available based simply on finance charges. Then there's the costs of "mothballing" locomotives, and, in the case of electrics, the power distribution system. This figure, plus the cost of returning these to service is NOT zero. I realize this isn't your strong suit. However, the "assumption" is based on tthe well-understood reality of the impact of the economic service life on the means of purchase used and that railroads would use, as they did with Steam and Electric, the most conservative means available to them if they could. With Dieselization, they couldn't. Secondly, with Electrification, no one stated the electrification would shut down; there's no mothballing of the distribution system -- in the case of Milwaukee, the HVAC portion was used by the power companies in any event. The Electrification would not stop operating, only that the motive power necessary would be used and the remainder parked. The cost of returning a stored Electric to service is ... not much. In the case of Steam, the cost of returning to service is less, in any hypothetical, than the cost of the financing charges plus the cost of returning to service of any Diesel. The point is, the capital re-investment was not necessary at the onset of WWII, and, had that been necessary, the railroads would have been in an entirely different situation than they were, at a time when manufacturing capacity was at its most restricted. As has been the point of several commentaries on this thread, the need to finance motive power purchased represented a substantial and adverse change in railroad expense and was brought about by the unexpectedly short service life combined with unexpectedly high maintenance costs of the new motive power. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Of course, this makes the assumption that all diesels would be bought on credit and steam or electric would be paid for in full regardless of when they were bought. There's no reason to assume that steam or electric locomotives, bought after World War 2, would be purchased with existing assets and not financed or leased. The railroad would have to borrow the money no matter which locomotive type was bought. Since few road diesels were bought before WW2, there's little comparison available based simply on finance charges. Then there's the costs of "mothballing" locomotives, and, in the case of electrics, the power distribution system. This figure, plus the cost of returning these to service is NOT zero.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl When you talk electric locomotive costs, you should remember to factor in the power substations and caternary (sp?). They didn't maintain or run themselves. The diesels carried their own built in generators. Without the power supply or distribution system, their flexibility is zero. Had that equivalent fleet been Diesel, or had any railroad's equivalent fleet been Diesel at that time, railroads in general would have been in far worse financial shape than they already were by trying to maintain those fleets at 1920s levels. Ultimately, a few years into the Depression, there would have been no stored Diesel fleet.. The year 1941 would have been an entirely different experience for American railroads, and for the United States as a whole, had it not been for its Steam and Electric motive power. Economic "flexibility" is what was historically important to railroads in the 20th Century. It is easy during an extended period of growth to forget lessons learned. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl When you talk electric locomotive costs, you should remember to factor in the power substations and caternary (sp?). They didn't maintain or run themselves. The diesels carried their own built in generators. Without the power supply or distribution system, their flexibility is zero.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl When you talk electric locomotive costs, you should remember to factor in the power substations and caternary (sp?). They didn't maintain or run themselves. The diesels carried their own built in generators. Without the power supply or distribution system, their flexibility is zero. Electrification too! Your comment underscores a misunderstanding, nearly total, between economic flexibility and something else, poorly defined, about where inappropriate motive power might be able to go in a pinch. The entire premise behind long-lived motive power, that is, long economic service lives, is the lack of financing pressure. During a slow year, a fully paid off Stream engine or Electric engine can simply be put in storage. A $1.5 million locomotive today incurs carrying charges, whether leased or financed, at the rate of just about $600 per day. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer Michael Sol: What is your word count in this thread? Don't you think you've expended an awful lot of effort not to have proven any more than you have? Couldn't your time have been spent more productively? Old Timer
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all. Best regards, Michael Sol If Sol's criteria for "least flexible" is a unit without a cab, then the Miwaukee boxcab center units would have won that prize, being restricted to electrified mainline track and yards, and being rigidly coupled to their sisters. Talk about limited in usability, unlike a diesel "B" unit, which could travel any track. Oh, I suppose I'm vaguely acquainted with them. There were no financing charges associated with them; they were long past their original estimated economic service life when they were created from former cab units. Very little cost associated with the conversion, put all the weight on the drivers. Cost about one-third the maintenance cost of any Diesel A or B unit, and cost about half to operate. Like a UP Centennial, Northern or any other big power, their usefulness to the railroad was in their specialty, not some vague, general purpose pinch-hit capability. They were specifically designed to be part of a powerful mainline locomotive operating in mountain territories. The strong point of the four unit Boxcab Electric after rebuilding was their output of nearly 6,800 horsepower and 162,000 lbs of tractive effort on a continuous basis, 212,000 lbs of tractive effort on an hourly basis (8200 hp), and a whopping 20,000 horsepower for brief periods. Ironically, 40 years after their manufacture, they had again become the most powerful locomotives in the world and one of the cheapest to operate. Can't beat that kind of "flexibility:" it's the kind that makes the railroad money. I spent a goodly number of hours with their designer, L.W. Wylie. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all. Best regards, Michael Sol If Sol's criteria for "least flexible" is a unit without a cab, then the Miwaukee boxcab center units would have won that prize, being restricted to electrified mainline track and yards, and being rigidly coupled to their sisters. Talk about limited in usability, unlike a diesel "B" unit, which could travel any track.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Wylie "redesigned" the Boxcabs so that several cab units were essentially rebuilt, losing their cabs and idler trucks, putting the entire weight of the unit on the driving wheels, removing their pantographs, and permanently wiring them to the cab units. In this sense, they were integral parts of the locomotive as they could not access power directly from the trolley. The 12 "bobtails" were built (rebuilt) between 1936 and 1939. This lowered weight by 15,000 pounds and increased tractive effort by 2,500 pounds. Wasn't that before Mr. Wylie ?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Wylie "redesigned" the Boxcabs so that several cab units were essentially rebuilt, losing their cabs and idler trucks, putting the entire weight of the unit on the driving wheels, removing their pantographs, and permanently wiring them to the cab units. In this sense, they were integral parts of the locomotive as they could not access power directly from the trolley.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.