Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[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 ?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr
I am delighted you got to meet the designer of the 1915 Boxcab electrics. That would make you very old, wouldn't it?

One thing you say (parroting Brown), is that pilot trucks are a waste because they take weight off the drivers that could be used to improve the locomotives tractive effort. That's horsehockey. The pilot trucks aren't weight-bearing. With or without them, the weight on the driving wheels is the same.

And I noticed you changed your criteria in evaluating locomotive "flexibility". You originally stated that "B" unit boosters were "inflexible" because they had to be tied to a cab unit. Then, when I pointed out the same situation in electrics, you changed your tune and said the B units there were actually integral parts of a single electric locomotive. It's just more of the usual twisting of facts and definitions.

Well, a lot of hostility there for some reason. Settle down.

The "designer" remark was to the booster unit boxcabs. Those were not designed by GE. While Milwaukee tried a couple of them (designs) under Reinier Bueewkes, Bueewkes believed that the 80 volt DC control voltage was not sufficient to operate four units linked together. He had other reasons as well. 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.

In this they were totally unlike the "B" unit of a Diesel locomotive. Further, they did not cost anything like the B unit of a Diesel locomotive. Further they operated at a substantial reduction on overall operating and repair costs compared to the B unit of a Diesel Locomotive. A B unit of a Diesel locomotive is not "flexible" for anything. It has no cab. Indeed, the arguments in favor of their alleged "flexibility" were so weak, they fell out of favor entirely and manufacturing ceased.

Finally, the C & D Boxcab units were functionally useful for a period approxmately 40 years longer than a B unit Diesel.

If there is an economic argument to be made, I am not sure what is actually operating in favor of the B unit Diesel. And, because of the electrical supply and permanent coupling, the Boxcab "boosters" were in fact integral units with the cabs. Perhaps it needs to be stated more clearly: no one advertised the Boxcab rebuilding program as designed a superior, more flexible, "booster" unit. This is in contrast to the advertising claims for the Diesel B unit. The Boxcab rebuilding was not intended to offer a separate unit for any reason. The Diesel B program obviously did. The only twisting of facts or definitions comes from trying to take two clearly quite separate ideas and saying they are somehow comparable even though no one intended them to be, they were never designed to be, and until now, no one at GE, GM, Milwaukee Road, or anywhere else, had ever claimed they were.

Wylie was, in fact, the "designer" of the four unit Boxcabs used on the Milwaukee Road, and that is the specific reference that I made above.

As to "parroting" H.F. Brown, Brown, to my recollection, said nothing about idler trucks, on Milwaukee Road Boxcabs or anywhere else.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Woops. I'll be the first to admit a mistake. Pilot trucks did in cases apparently have some load-bearing function, as well as their main function, which was to guide ("pilot") the locomotive into a curve.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

I am delighted you got to meet the designer of the 1915 Boxcab electrics. That would make you very old, wouldn't it?

One thing you say (parroting Brown), is that pilot trucks are a waste because they take weight off the drivers that could be used to improve the locomotives tractive effort. That's horsehockey. The pilot trucks aren't weight-bearing. With or without them, the weight on the driving wheels is the same.

And I noticed you changed your criteria in evaluating locomotive "flexibility". You originally stated that "B" unit boosters were "inflexible" because they had to be tied to a cab unit. Then, when I pointed out the same situation in electrics, you changed your tune and said the B units there were actually integral parts of a single electric locomotive. It's just more of the usual twisting of facts and definitions.

[daveklepper]

The road-switcher did prove far more flexible than either the cab units it replaced or the steam locomotives. I mentioned the crew and the GP-7 that regularly took a multistop passenger train (4pm departure) from Boston's North Station to Portsmouth, NH, yarded the train, then picked up approximatley 50 freight cars and returned to Sommerville Yard by around 2AM. switching one or two sidings en route. To get the same performance from steam, it had required a double headed 2-6-0 round trip or a 4-6-2 to Portsmouth and a 2-8-0 or 2-8-2 to return with the 4-6-2 returning on a morning passenger.

[ValleyX]

You know, I don't want to sound like a smart alec but I suppose that I will but Michael, tell us, you're a retired eccentric, aren't you? Sorry but you've got all this time to post and these long posts packed with statistics, opinion, points, and rebuttals.

[Anonymous]

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

[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

[Anonymous]

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.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.
Best regards, Michael Sol

That's only 82 of the "B" units as opposed to 428 of the "A" units.

By now, the literally hundreds of models of Diesel locomotives, designed up, down, back and forth around various concepts of flexibility contrasted to more efficient design-specific tasks, suggests that a single example utilizing mixed locomotive metaphors is neither useful nor an explanation of why railroads had to suffer a 50% decline in ROI so that an E7A could pinch-hit somewhere.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Also known as product development or evolution. The history of the steam locomotive is full of the same kind of stories. Even the different models underwent continuous upgrades and improvements during the course of their lives. And this can cause historians to have some "heated discussions" when trying to decide what point in its life to restore a historic item. I've been involved in several.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.
Best regards, Michael Sol

That's only 82 of the "B" units as opposed to 428 of the "A" units.

The proposition supposes that a general purpose Diesel was somehow more economically useful than a specialty steam engine because of the example cited.

The proposition did not go so far as to suggest that 428 such A units were ever purchased to be used in such odd circumstances, nor that the unusual circumstance somehow offers a counter-explanation to the inflexibility of 82 B units.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Of course, that would depend on the difference between the terms "economically useful" and "versitile."

By the time of the introduction of the E7 series, the changes in operating rules had encouraged EMD to advertise the MU concept, or "building block" idea of putting a locomotive together to handle the load, or taking them apart and using them separately in circumstances requiring lower horsepower.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[The "fashion" carried through to many operating departments due to the provisions in their union contracts which required one locomotive = one locomotive crew. If each section (as they were called at the time) would have been considered a separate locomotive, an A-B-B-A set for the FT's would require four locomotive crews.

And union contracts also prevented the railroads from realizing one of the biggest potential benefits from Dieselization: abolishing the fireman, the most contentious labor issue of the time.

Some felt that unions were determined to wreck the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable with a single person isolated in the cab while I'm riding the train. Who knows what can happen. Although "Fireman" may be the traditional name for the job, for simple safety, there needs to be more than one person up there.

I know they'd never go for flying a B747 with only the pilot in the cockpit.

Unfortunately, it was industry that established the "us vs. them" mentality that caused the formation unions in the first place.I guess that's what the old saying means: "You reap what you sow."

Two comments:

You should probably stay off Amtrak or commuter trains. They are all one man in the cab.

The fireman was the 3rd man in the cab in many, many places. The Engr would also be accompanied by the headend brakeman - except when he was out walking along the top of the train tieing down the handbrakes. [:D]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.
Best regards, Michael Sol

That's only 82 of the "B" units as opposed to 428 of the "A" units.

The proposition supposes that a general purpose Diesel was somehow more economically useful than a specialty steam engine because of the example cited.

The proposition did not go so far as to suggest that 428 such A units were ever purchased to be used in such odd circumstances, nor that the unusual circumstance somehow offers a counter-explanation to the inflexibility of 82 B units.

By now, the literally hundreds of models of Diesel locomotives, designed up, down, back and forth around various concepts of flexibility contrasted to more efficient design-specific tasks, suggests that a single example utilizing mixed locomotive metaphors is neither useful nor an explanation of why railroads had to suffer a 50% decline in ROI so that an E7A could pinch-hit somewhere.

It does, however, raise the question as to whether railroads actually did make their transition decision based upon what had to have been a circumstance comprising less than one-one hundredth of one per cent of all locomotive miles operated on Class I railways at the time.

I don't think they did.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

That's only 82 of the "B" units as opposed to 428 of the "A" units.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

Of course, that underscores the problem of all those E7B's, which were the least flexible motive power of all.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[vsmith]

lets round this up to 600 replies


this is #600

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

One issue to which only a few people have alluded is the increased flexibility in assignments that multiple-unit capabilities afforded to diesels. It may have taken 3 E7A's to equal an NYC Niagara in horsepower at speed, but the E7's could be assigned to three different locals or secondary trains if required, a bit difficult to accomplish with one Niagara.
CB&Q powered its suburban runs from the same pool as its long hauls, not an easy set-up to accomplish with steam, especially when push-pull operations for suburban trains began.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[The "fashion" carried through to many operating departments due to the provisions in their union contracts which required one locomotive = one locomotive crew. If each section (as they were called at the time) would have been considered a separate locomotive, an A-B-B-A set for the FT's would require four locomotive crews.

And union contracts also prevented the railroads from realizing one of the biggest potential benefits from Dieselization: abolishing the fireman, the most contentious labor issue of the time.

Some felt that unions were determined to wreck the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable with a single person isolated in the cab while I'm riding the train. Who knows what can happen. Although "Fireman" may be the traditional name for the job, for simple safety, there needs to be more than one person up there.

I know they'd never go for flying a B747 with only the pilot in the cockpit.

Unfortunately, it was industry that established the "us vs. them" mentality that caused the formation unions in the first place.I guess that's what the old saying means: "You reap what you sow."

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[The "fashion" carried through to many operating departments due to the provisions in their union contracts which required one locomotive = one locomotive crew. If each section (as they were called at the time) would have been considered a separate locomotive, an A-B-B-A set for the FT's would require four locomotive crews.

And union contracts also prevented the railroads from realizing one of the biggest potential benefits from Dieselization: abolishing the fireman, the most contentious labor issue of the time.

Some felt that unions were determined to wreck the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[Of course this begs the question, "how did they count diesel locomotives?" When the railroads got the first road diesels, they were drawbar connected into semipermanent sets, which, for reasons of taxes and Union contracts (plus others, I'm sure), were counted as a single locomotive. The idea of removing the drawbars and installing standard couplers wasn't brought into the mix until later, when they realized the versatility of being able to mix and match.

From an engineering perspective, how they are connected wasn't relevant during the study period. However, because of the practice of GM to call any number of units lashed together in any fashion a "locomotive" for public relations purposes, the Brown study clearly distinguishes the basic "unit" of motive power from the GM terminology.

Best regards, Michael Sol

The "fashion" carried through to many operating departments due to the provisions in their union contracts which required one locomotive = one locomotive crew. If each section (as they were called at the time) would have been considered a separate locomotive, an A-B-B-A set for the FT's would require four locomotive crews.

[Anonymous]

Boy I can't belive this thread has survived to 30 pages, to bad most of it is just drivel.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[Of course this begs the question, "how did they count diesel locomotives?" When the railroads got the first road diesels, they were drawbar connected into semipermanent sets, which, for reasons of taxes and Union contracts (plus others, I'm sure), were counted as a single locomotive. The idea of removing the drawbars and installing standard couplers wasn't brought into the mix until later, when they realized the versatility of being able to mix and match.

From an engineering perspective, how they are connected wasn't relevant during the study period. However, because of the practice of GM to call any number of units lashed together in any fashion a "locomotive" for public relations purposes, the Brown study clearly distinguishes the basic "unit" of motive power from the GM terminology.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV
One advantage that Brown gives to the Diesel is its higher availability, 90 percent to 60 percent.

The "availability" measure is just about meaningless for two reasons.

1) For the study period in question, it took at least four diesel units to pull the same tonnage as a Northern. In terms of locomotive miles, that meant a 4 to 1 advantage to steam. Indeed, the diesel fleet would have to show 100,000 locomotive miles to equal the productivity of a Northern showing only 25,000 miles. For a Northern operating 300,000 miles annually, Diesels would be required to operate 1,200,000 locomotive unit miles to move the same freight tonnage.

If the Northern were restricted by its "availability" it could only operate 180,000 miles annually, a loss of 120,000 locomotive miles.

Interestingly, if the four Diesel locomotives were limited solely by their "availability" rating of 90%, they would be able to generate only 1,080,000 locomotive unit miles. A loss due to availability of the identical number of 120,000 locomotive miles lost by the single Steam unit.

The 90% availability looks to have the same ramifications as the 60% availability because of the additive effect of probabilities with each discrete event (locomotive).

However, this is one reason why "locomotive miles" is a tricky and somewhat superficial statistic applied to motive power types of significantly different horsepower. The quality of the Northern locomotive miles are different than the quality of the Diesel locomotive miles.

2) Even today, the 90,000 mile annual fleet average of BNSF locomotives is substantially below what modern Steam was demonstrably capable of in 1950

The Milwaukee Baltic class ran off 150,000 miles per year, but that only represented 7 hours of actual daily work. It was able to sit and relax for the other 17 hours, utilizing only half of its supposed "availability." A modern Diesel with 90% availability is moving only 10 mph at the current average annual mileage. Since average train speed on the BNSF is about 23 mph, that means the average locomotive today is not moving anything about 50% of the time.

Locomotive "availability" was a more or less meaningless figure.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Of course this begs the question, "how did they count diesel locomotives?" When the railroads got the first road diesels, they were drawbar connected into semipermanent sets, which, for reasons of taxes and Union contracts (plus others, I'm sure), were counted as a single locomotive. The idea of removing the drawbars and installing standard couplers wasn't brought into the mix until later, when they realized the versatility of being able to mix and match.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV
One advantage that Brown gives to the Diesel is its higher availability, 90 percent to 60 percent.

The "availability" measure is just about meaningless for two reasons.

1) For the study period in question, it took at least four diesel units to pull the same tonnage as a Northern. In terms of locomotive miles, that meant a 4 to 1 advantage to steam. Indeed, the diesel fleet would have to show 100,000 locomotive miles to equal the productivity of a Northern showing only 25,000 miles. For a Northern operating 300,000 miles annually, Diesels would be required to operate 1,200,000 locomotive unit miles to move the same freight tonnage.

If the Northern were restricted by its "availability" it could only operate 180,000 miles annually, a loss of 120,000 locomotive miles.

Interestingly, if the four Diesel locomotives were limited solely by their "availability" rating of 90%, they would be able to generate only 1,080,000 locomotive unit miles. A loss due to availability of the identical number of 120,000 locomotive miles lost by the single Steam unit.

The 90% availability looks to have the same ramifications as the 60% availability because of the additive effect of probabilities with each discrete event (locomotive).

However, this is one reason why "locomotive miles" is a tricky and somewhat superficial statistic applied to motive power types of significantly different horsepower. The quality of the Northern locomotive miles are different than the quality of the Diesel locomotive miles.

2) Even today, the 90,000 mile annual fleet average of BNSF locomotives is substantially below what modern Steam was demonstrably capable of in 1950

The Milwaukee Baltic class ran off 150,000 miles per year, but that only represented 7 hours of actual daily work. It was able to sit and relax for the other 17 hours, utilizing only half of its supposed "availability." A modern Diesel with 90% availability is moving only 10 mph at the current average annual mileage. Since average train speed on the BNSF is about 23 mph, that means the average locomotive today is not moving anything about 50% of the time.

Locomotive "availability" was a more or less meaningless figure.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV
For what its worth, an example of fleet averages of modern Diesels, I calculated that the BNSF locomotive fleet averaged 90,000 miles per year with an average age of 16 years based on numbers from the following report: "BNSF Railway Company, Class I Annual Report to the Surface Transportation Board for the Year ending December 31, 2001".

Interesting. Class I railroading is so much different today; the branchline system is by and large gone, a much higher percentage of locomotives operate purely on mainlines, not much stopping for single cars anymore.

However, a 16 year old locomotive is probably about 4.8 years after its major overhaul, and looking at the expected productivity based on the 12 year economic service life estimate set out above, a "4.8 year old" Diesel locomotive would be expected to produce about 90,000 miles per year.

In 1957.

I guess I'm a little surprised to see it in 2006.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AnthonyV

Maybe I missed something, but isn't it your and Brown's position that the switch to Diesel placed the railroads at a fundamental disadvantage?

Well now, you're changing the words. For several important cost drivers, Dieselization offered significant advantages due entirely to the differences in technology. However, on the economic side of things, Dieselization offered an entirely new cost driver -- financing charges -- and a strong tailwind to those financing charges in the form of a substantially reduced economic service life compared to modern Steam.

During the Dieselization process, shop forces could go down dramatically, no doubt. But, by the time the average fleet age began to reach 10, 12, and 14 years, suddenly railroads were confronted with overhaul costs that represented a significant proportion of the original purchase price, plus the need to perform such maintenance on a locomotive by locomotive basis, as essentially custom shop work. Expensive labor and expensive parts.

Brown's study hadn't been able to report on that aspect because the average age of the Diesel fleet was only 6 or 7 years at the time of his study, but his cost curves clearly predicted it and that explains his conclusion that, when those overhaul costs were prorated over the life of the machine, "maintenance" costs exceeded those of the Steam fleet by a substantial margin even though those expenses were, in many cases, capitalized by the railroads rather than reported as repairs.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[AnthonyV]

Michael:

Maybe I missed something, but isn't it your and Brown's position that the switch to Diesel placed the railroads at a fundamental disadvantage?

As for average mileage, the numbers are very revealing. Locomotive inventory data is presented in terms of numbers and average age. Average annual mileage was very low.

I can think of two extreme cases regarding the mileage and age issue.

One case is the every locomotive traveled the average annual mileage each year. This is obviously an unrealistic case.

The other is that fewer, relatively modern steam locomotives traveled very high mileage (100,000+) each year, and the older ones traveled hardly at all. Wouldn't this present a distorted picture of the average age? For example, isn't this like having a 25 year old car that sits in the driveway and is hardly driven, yet it is included in the average age of the cars in the driveway?

Would not a mileage-weighted average age be more accurate if in fact the newer locomotives were accumulating most of the miles?

The questions that remains in my mind is: What would what would a steam locomotive fleet look like that meets the actual railroad's operating needs? How many locomotives be needed? What would the distribution of horsepower look like?

Looking at it another way, does the steam locomotive fleet in the late 1940's represent what is actually needed in terms of numbers and power distribution?

For what its worth, an example of fleet averages of modern Diesels, I calculated that the BNSF locomotive fleet averaged 90,000 miles per year with an average age of 16 years based on numbers from the following report: "BNSF Railway Company, Class I Annual Report to the Surface Transportation Board for the Year ending December 31, 2001".

As far as Diesel repair costs, I do have some numbers, but I can handle only one aspect of this issue at a time.

Thanks
Anthony V.

[MichaelSol]

Anthony, you need to look at what you're saying. You state as follows:

"The argument put forth by both Michael and Brown (Note that I have read Brown's paper.) is that there was no fundamental advantage offered by Diesel technology."

Wow, I think I've said it about 15 times now. In terms of fuel efficiency, and water savings, all due to "technology" there were signficant advantages to Dieselization. Brown says the same thing. From a strictly "operating" standpoint, there was a fundamental advantage regarding at least two specific cost drivers.

Now, you did something odd wth your mileage comparisons. As Brown warned, you cannot compare a 6.6 year old Diesel with a 27 year old steam engine, particularly when 40% of that "steam engine" represents locomotives predating 1915.

The average annual mileage data you present needs to be a little more rigorous. The decline in annual mileage of the Diesel locomotive shows a consistent phenomenon at work. I have no reason to think from looking at the data graphically that it is not linear.

Accordingly, your average annual mileage decline clearly relates to age. If you extend that trend line out to equal what you show for actual results for steam, it paints quite a different picture.

At 26 years, the Diesel fleet would show an annual average mileage of only 15,209 miles. In other words, the fleet would be just about non-functional. The steam fleet as you show it actually averaged 43,240 miles annually at an average age of 26 years, almost triple what a Diesel fleet average would look like.

As Brown points out, 40% of the Steam fleet in 1945 was built prior to 1915. He also points out that Steam constructed after 1930 was of a different quality than steam built prior to that date. Whole new classes of high efficiency, high horsepower units were being put into road service, while older models were relegated to branchline work, and in many cases, simply made inactive although their numbers continued to be counted for statistical purposes (which skews the numbers against Steam).

However, if the 40% of pre-1915 steam is assumed to have been largely functioning at 1915 levels, and "new" Steam represented a different performance level, linear regression shows that post-1930 steam would have been averaging about 43,281 miles annually at the age of 26 years.

As built, "Modern" Steam was an entirely different matter. Milwaukee Road's Alco "Baltic" class, 1934 design, for instance was expected to run 150,000 miles annually under very high speed conditions, and did, and the Hudson class that replaced them did so easily. Milwaukee Road "Northerns" routinely topped 200,000 miles per year.

Further, an annualized "locomotive miles" measure understates that, on a per horsepower basis comparison to modern Road Steam, the Diesel-electrics were operating 800,000 miles annually, combined unit mileage, to haul the equivalent of 200,000 miles with a single unit Northern. If brand new Diesel-electrics were only averaging 100,000 miles per year per unit, then eight such units were realistically necessary to do the work that a Northern was doing.

Then, given the life span of that Northern, 24 such Diesel units, or their overhauled equivalents, were necessary to match the economic productivity of that Northern. Now, the cost of 24 Diesel-electric units compared to the cost of 1 Northern? Is it any wonder that the Diesels required financing where the Northern did not?

In either case, modern Road Steam was at least double the capability of the road Diesel unit, using annualized mileage/economic service life as the basis for comparison.
Averge
Age Diesel Steam
1 108739, 100990
2 104998, 98680
3 101256, 96370
4 97515, 94060
5 93774, 91750
6 90033, 89440
7 86292, 87130
8 82550, 84820
9 78809, 82510
10 75068, 80200
15 56362, 68650
20 37656, 57100
25 18950, 45550
26 15209, 43240
30 244, 34000

You can seen in these figures the reasoning as to why the Diesel-electric was originally thought to have a 20 year economic service life, as its "ability" at that point nearly equalled that of Steam at 30 years. This is exactly what the railroads would have been looking at at the time. As Brown points out, however, the 30 year figure for Steam -- the point at which the economic utility ceased, was not reached by the Diesel-Electric at age 20 years. Instead, it was being reached between 12 and 14 years. The data presented above, then was optimistic.

The data Brown had available, through 1957, represented a Diesel fleet on the average 6.6 years old. The data already showed something was wrong with the assumptions. By the time road Diesels were beginning to reach the end of their economic service lives at age 12, it was obvious. But Dieselization was for all practical purposes complete.

There was no going back, ROI was now such that there was nothing left to finance a complete remake of the fleet once again. Whether it was a mistake or not, the railroads were stuck with it one way or another by the time the operating results became clear. Being "stuck" with a decision is not, as some as have contended, the same thing as historical vindication.

By then, using your annual mileage metric, the figures of modern Diesel vs modern Steam looked like this:
Age .. Diesel ....Steam
1......115410........100990
2......108340.........98680
3......101270.........96370
4.......94200..........94060
5.......87130..........91750
6.......80060..........89440
7.......72990..........87130
8.......65920..........84820
9.......58850..........82510
10.....51780..........80200
11.....44710..........77890
12.....37640..........75580
15 .......................68650
20........................57100
25........................45550
30........................34000

Interestingly, the economic service life of the Diesel-electric represents just about 1 million miles, before replacement or heavy overhaul. That hasn't changed in 50 years. Considering technological advances over that time, that seems odd.

Steam, built prior to 1915, was just as likely to be worn out at 1 million miles or less. Post-1930 Steam, on the other hand, appears from the statistical record to have had a 2 million mile service life, in addition to its higher operating efficiencies at speeds between 20 and 60 mph. It appears that advances in engineering, metallurgy, and other technology were making genuine contributions to the economics of Steam power, and there is no reason to suspect that Steam would not have continued to benefit from those advances. The mystery is why the Diesel has not benefitted in that fashion.

If someone really wanted to raise a ruckus, an interesting study would be as to whether Dieselization, while representing an apparent technological advance, actually represented a technological dead-end that prevented continuing technological development of the mode more susceptible to genuine and continuing technological improvement.

However, taking your analysis to its logical conclusion, you must both look at "young" Steam as well as "old" Diesel, instead of how you handled it, which was to compare "young" Diesel with "old" Steam. A brand new Diesel looked pretty good compared even to new Steam; it looked terrific compared to old Steam. But that just wasn't the whole story. It wasn't even the story at all as it turned out. Road Steam was a better runner when it was 20 years old than a road Diesel was at 10.

And this is more to the point of what Brown was saying. The economic service life of modern Steam power was considerably different than the Diesel-electric locomotive, and while the Diesel-electric locomotive represented technical advantages in regards to fuel and water consumption, notwithstanding its higher availability -- in its early years -- its functional abilities declined at a very rapid rate, compared to Steam power. This had a profound economic impact which overwhelmed its technological advantages.

No doubt, engineering complexity played a significant role in that rapid deterioration.

You did not mention, and I am not sure why since the numbers I generated above are entirely consistent with those curves, the cost per 1000 hp mile curves in Brown's paper which contraindicates what you attempted to put together above, and which plainly reflected the much high maintenance costs on that comparable metric, of the Diesel, as well as the much higher rate of cost growth, which plainly shows as well in my figures above.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[solzrules]

QUOTE: Originally posted by germanium

Can we now draw a veil over these proceedings ? Much erudite reasoning has been advanced, but we are now reaching the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?" stage of fruitlessness.

Come on now. These discussions will make a difference some day if the railroads will go back to steam.............We will look like geniouses!!

[solzrules]

Okay, this may be a stupid question, but you can chalk it up to me not having a computer for the last 5 years and not being involved in these conversations (even if I am not now). MichaelSol do you have any actual experience with the rail industry (the Milwaukee Road in particular)? How about AnthonyV? You guys seem to be able to quote stuff that nobody would know unless they were privy to actual company studies.....
I am not asking for details or anything................................[:D]