Trains.com

Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

37404 views
738 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:17 AM
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



One major problem with this assumption is that the railroads had access to all the parts and materials needed to maintain the fleet during this period. The War Production Board strictly controlled the distribution of steel for domestic use, which is a major metal used in the construction and repair of steam locomotives (I offer this from personal experience). The lack of parts and materials will skew this figure, so evaluating it just on the book entries, without considering the situation would be misleading. It's like saying your car costs less to maintain because you never had oil available to change it when required.

Lack of proper and complete maintenance and repair at this time, coupled with the heavy surge in railroad traffic caused by the war, accelerated the wear and tear on the locomotives, as well as infrastructure and other rolling stock. The railroads were playing a serious game of catch-up on all these factors after WW2.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 9:05 AM
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



So you finally admit that if the railroads had decided to purchase steam at this point in history, they would have had to finance the purchase just like they did the purchase of diesels. The point I was trying to make is, that this factor needs to be considered if the argument is that the finance charges damaged the savings from the conversion to diesel. It was a charge they also would have had if they decided to buy new steam.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, February 2, 2006 8:53 AM
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



I'm talking English, not Swiss. Or Balkan (whatever their language is)

Out of my entire argument, this is the only thing he could debate???
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 8:33 AM
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.

Oh good grief, I am a consultant for two HVAC companies -- the heating and air conditiong kind. I assure you I know what they are.

You can refer to nearly any document on high voltage power transmission and find the acronym HVAC used. It is a standard industry term. See: Siemens Power Engineering Guide, Transmission & Distribution (2004), "High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Transmission Systems Technology Review Paper" by Rudervall, Carpentier, and Sharma, prepared for the World Bank, A Department of Energy Symposium held August 3, 2001, "Analysis and Concepts to Address Electric Infrastructure Needs," "HVDC Transmission," by Dennis Woodford, Manitoba HVDC Research Centre, 3/18/98, "Challenging Opportunities for Incoming Engineers in HVDC Transmission Technology," Katancevic, IEEE Paper, 2002, Winter Meeting.

For Google types:
http://www.balkanenergy.com/engleski/powersystems.htm
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/cigresc14/page10.html
http://www.macleanpower.com/getnews.cfm?ShowNewsItem=5
http://www.acrastyle.co.uk/highvoltagepowerelectricsystems.htm
http://www.wgint.com/service.php?id=19
http://www.remotegasstrategies.com/gas-wire/index.asp

In the power generation industry, HVAC is the identical acronym is used. For those familiar with both industries, it is not remarkable. For those who are not, apparently it is remarkable.

Since there was no discussion of heating and air conditioning going on, I assumed, wrongly, that HVAC in the context of power transmission was self explanatory. Hopefully this sets the record straight that we were not talking about heating and air conditioning in the context of the 110 kvAC line of the Milwaukee Road electrification.

Best regards, Michael Sol

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, February 2, 2006 6:29 AM
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.
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, February 2, 2006 5:14 AM
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?
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 12:05 AM
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.

The poster, who has apparently finally imbibed one too many, falsely attributes to me a remark in the quotation box above which I did not make. From that auspicious start, setting the usual standard, the slide into incoherence was inevitable but unusually rapid.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, February 2, 2006 12:03 AM
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
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Steam Locomotives versus Diesels
Posted by greyhounds on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:57 PM
]

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.

2) The financing change was probably due to a vast right/left/middle of the road/ conspiracy directed directly against Montana wheat farmers. The whole goal was a multi-phase plan to destroy the Milwaukee Road by first driving it into receivership by making sure it had too much business. The next step was to drive up copper prices so as to make it attractive for the MILW to pull down its electrification and sell wire for scrap. This destroyed the ability of 12 locomotives, the "Little Joe Electrics" to save the entire Milwaukee.

After those two basic steps were accomplished, the surviving Evil Empire Builder's railroad could use its total control of the strategic Montana wheat transportation market to finance predatory pricing on grain moving from Minneapolis and drive barges off the Mississippi River; making the victimized Montana AND North Dakota wheat farmers pay for its predation.

The final phase of the vast conspiracy is now being implamented (with guidance from the Chinese and radical Muslims). The Evil Empire Builder's railroad is litterally forcing, I SAY FORCING, grain elevators to build loop tracks instead of regular sidings to get its best rates.

The World according to Sol.
"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.
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:46 PM
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?

Over 50% of the fleet was post-1930 "modern" Steam. Like the alleged savings in water, never mentioning lubricants, the savings in fuel, never mentioning financing charges, the alleged savings in maintenance, never admitting they went up, the old saw that Steam was "worn out" is just that: an old saw. Undoubtedly the pre-1915 Steam was worn out. It was before the War started, the modern Steam was not.

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
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:31 PM
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


I keep wondering the same thing about you.

You've announced your departure from this thread numerous times, you've posted the same lengthy denunciations taking about three full pages worth by now, and never contributing a dime's worth of information.

You brag about your experience, but it seems curiously limited on the analytical side. You denounced the thread but confess to returning to it mutliple times. I'd say the baloney you've posted on this thread alone deserves an award for the most time wasted on a thread.

You don't like Brown, and you've made that clear, but I didn't notice that anyone cared. Your experience and education in railroad motive power was obviously neither of his caliber nor does it rise to the level of genuine professionals that I have worked with. You apparently failed your Professional Engineering exam and have had a grudge against genuine professionals ever since. It plainly shows. There's not much I can do about that, nor do I particularly care. It's your problem not mine.

Your continuing diatribes and unprofessional comments on this thread have offered nothing but the same refrain over and over. You act like a spoiled brat who can't get his way and so just keeps stamping his foot until he gets it. If you don't like the topic, you are cordially invited to butt out. Nobody invited you.

You don't need to worry about my business, I would suggest you mind your own. Judging by your repeated expressions of distress, I think you would be much the happier for it

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:12 PM
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


Another example of the pot calling the kettle black on misleading observations.

Since you ARE making this conclusion, and discounting evidence presented by OldTimer that steam was, in fact, financed and not all were paid off by the time of retirement, answer this question:

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?
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:10 PM
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
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:01 PM
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.

I am sure that when Steam was being scrapped prematurely, instances such as you describe were true. All that demonstrates is the scrapping of a useful asset, in order to incur further debt. A risky financial strategy at best and one that the record shows did not succeed.

Your remark is in the fashion of someone pointing out that Steam still lives today at Steamtown, therefore that proves that Steam was best.

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
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:56 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding



Quote originally posted by Tom Diehl
While the claim that the RAPID dieselization caused the railroads to lose money is believable based on many factors


Holy Cow! Batman! I think Tom Diehl may have just agreed with Michael Sol [:O]
This one sentence kind of sums up what I had been thinking all along.


Well, when he states the Obvious........
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:54 PM
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?
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:52 PM
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


You're the one making the statements that the costs of financing diesels added to the debt. An obvious statement. Even more obvious when the figures you quoted show that they purchased far more diesels than steam in the time period in question. There's little or no record of the financing costs of steam locomotives in this time period because of this.

However, the fact remains that the railroads needed to purchase new locomotives after WW2. Be the decision to purchase steam or diesel, the availability of funds at this point in history would determine if the locomotives would be purchased with available funds or financed. The financing costs would be added to the railroads expense sheet, regardless of which type locomotives they purchased. This simple fact negates the statement that purchasing diesels with borrowed money caused the downturn in their profit margin. The same thing would have happened if they purchased steam. THAT you have yet to disprove.

Then you'd have to find out if the financing interest rate would be the same for the purchase of steam as opposed to diesel.

The fact that railroads did their own overhauls on the steam is presented to show that the railroad managers were probably thinking along these lines when they thought the diesel could be overhauled in-house and the expense of it could be controlled because of this.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:48 PM
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
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:45 PM


Quote originally posted by Tom Diehl
While the claim that the RAPID dieselization caused the railroads to lose money is believable based on many factors


Holy Cow! Batman! I think Tom Diehl may have just agreed with Michael Sol [:O]
This one sentence kind of sums up what I had been thinking all along.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:42 PM
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
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:39 PM
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.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 10:35 PM
HVAC is High Voltage Alernating Current, which is how Milwaukee distributed its power to the generators.

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
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 8:58 PM
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


While the claim that the RAPID dieselization caused the railroads to lose money is believable based on many factors, the finance charges on the purchase being only one of them, the fact remains that there were many locomotives that needed to be replaced after WW2. The decision to finance these or pay for them outright would be based on availability of the funds as weighed against the terms of the loan or lease. This decision would be made regardless of the choice of locomotive type.

The service life of a locomotive would vary depending on mileage, and how often the locomotive was rebuilt. The cost of rebuilding would vary depending on who did the work. In the days of steam, large railroads had the capability of rebuilding their own locomotives, some even built them from the ground up. Steam locomotives were rebuilt completely at 5 year intervals (ever hear of a Class 3 overhaul?) and the railroads went on the premise that they could do this work in house with the new diesels. The shops took some time "gearing up" for this work, but even today the Juniata Shops, for example, are even doing assembly work for EMD.

And the Milwaukee road had that big of a demand for Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) that their electrification system was used for it? But seriously, the weather is a major factor on the wear and tear of the miles of overhead wire and supports of the electrification system, regardless of how many trains a day use it. The cost of returning ANY locomotive to service is strongly dependant on HOW it was stored and what preparations were done to it before storage. You can't just roll them into an abandoned yard, leave them sit, and expect them to be ready to go on a moment's notice. For an extreme example, we deal with poorly stored locomotives (and cars) when determining which locomotive to restore next at Steamtown.

And if you check the history books, the War Production Board restricted the manufacture of diesel, steam, and electric locomotives early in WW2, so there was little decision to make about buying locomotives. They didn't have the opportunity in many cases. As soon as the board released the locomotive manufacturers from these restrictions, railroads were ready to start buying big time to replace the locomotives that would normally have been replaced during the war, plus new ones for the perceived increased traffic.

And again you're making the assumption that ALL steam locomotives on the railroad, stored or not, were completely paid for, and that ALL diesels would be financed.

The adverse effect of financing locomotive purchases would be there regardless of whether they bought steam or diesel. At that point in history, it would depend on, as I said above, availability of funds.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 8:12 PM
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 the 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
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 6:24 PM
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



Again, this makes the assumption that all diesels would be bought on credit, and not paid off before the depression. And that all steam or electric locomotives would be fully owned or paid off.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 6:21 PM
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



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.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 4:36 PM
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.

A railroad doesn't have much choice about having excess power on the property for any appreciable amount of time. That guarantees the shortage when the upsurge comes.

Over the long term, Steam provided railroads with great flexibility. Thousands of locomotives were essentially put into storage during the Great Depression. They were available then for the surge of traffic during World War II. Had they been Diesel, they would have been turned back and likely scrapped. American railroads would not have been able to do what they did during WWII without that reserve of Steam.

Similarly, Electrification likewise permits motive power to be stored at little cost to the railroad, then activated when demand rises. Milwaukee Road's electric motive power fleet survived intact during the Great Depression with no carrying charges.

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

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 3:12 PM
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


I'm surprised that he hasn't developed carpal tunnel syndrome, just on this thread.

[:D]
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 3:10 PM
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



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.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 11:48 AM
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 ?

A limited number of three units sets were created under Reinier Bueewkes. He did not believe four units sets were feasible.

L.W. Wylie first joined the Electrification Dept in 1917, but went down the hall (literally, in the Stewart-Henry-White bldg) to the operating department in the early 1920s.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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