Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

Let me see if I can recap 27 pages of BS in just a couple of paragraphs.

MichaelSol presents the theory that it was a mistake for the railroads to dieselize.

Never said that. Oddly enough neither did Brown.

Historical discussion on issues with important economic consequence are interesting enough on their own merits, but it is surely the distinction of a weak case when you have to fabricate a false position for someone, in the obvious absence of a case for you to argue otherwise. I gather it's just easier to make stuff up, that's actually all you've done on this entire thread.

In light of multiple comments that have nothing factual to offer on the topic at all, your sudden announcement that Brown's study was "questionable" raises the obvious question: on what specific grounds? In "27 pages of BS", you've never given a hint as to what those might be.

I am told, incidentally, that Brown participated in over 100 consulting studies for major US railroads during his career. I assume that his professional achievements are what seems to generate an extraordinary hostility on your part towards him since you become inarticulate when it comes to actually providing any facts on the subject of the thread.

I noted earlier you dismissed the PE credential somewhat contemptuously, and apparently the Doctorate degree in engineering as well. Now you falsify and misrepresent his record. Then you libel his study. Given the source, it doesn't hurt Brown's reputation one single bit, but it raises inevitable questions about you: since your allegations are plainly not true, what's your motive?.

There is nothing on the face of a straightforward econometric study by a reputable consulting firm that seems to justify the unending, entirely personal attacks on H.F. Brown. I suspect something personal at the bottom of all these bitter comments, possibly about the inability to pass the PE exam, or a job perhaps at Gibbs & Hill? Got a paper rejected by a professional journal and had to go to a railfan magazine? There is simply too much bitterness in your comments to reflect the balanced judgment of a professional regarding a published paper in a prestigious, well-known engineering journal, by a well-known motive power engineer, at a reputable consulting firm.

Wthout an explanation, your comments appear only gratuitous, ad hominem and entirely unprofessional.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
[Steam engines require a ton of maintenance. It they could build a low maintenance steam engine that was profitable for the railroad (or any industry), I think they would have done that by now.

There seems to be little support in the historical record for that. Milwaukee Road figures show maintenance costs went up. Brown's study for all Class I railroads shows that maintenance costs went up.

If it is so "obvious" that maintenance costs went down, then why does there seem to be so much difficulty showing any numbers to support it? OldTimer and TomDiehl seem to be able to generate a lot of name-calling, but are unable to generate a factual analysis, despite the allegation of so many studies "by all the railroads" unanimously showing the contrary. If there are that many studies, they should be like wallpaper. Oddly, OldTimer and TomDiehl just seem to have misplaced their copies. When I misplaced mine, I grabbed some annual reports and did an analysis. They can't seem to do that either. What's the problem here?

It is a rare historic event of so much consequence that is so obvious that no one seems to be able to actually show it to be true. It's not that hard to go through some annual reports. The Transport Statistics are in libraries all over the place. This just isn't that hard to prove, if it is so obviously true. Good grief, this is a numbers question: just show the numbers if it so obvious.

QUOTE: Steam is deadly.

So is high voltage railway electrification. It outlasted steam and it will outlast diesel. Steam boilers are still commonplace in office building installations, our insurance carrier expresses no concerns about ours and our Stationary Engineer reports to me he hasn't heard of a boiler explosion in about 40 years. Interestingly enough, he says that either mechanical or modern electronic controls and sensors make that just about impossible. He also says they are foolproof, but cautions that there is always a fool out there somewhere that will prove the adage wrong.

QUOTE:
You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

What that has to do with the debate during the period of Dieselization is zero. There have been several AC traction motor threads where I am sure your comments might be useful.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

NW_611 -

You'd probably be better advised to start another thread than try to get anything out of this one . . .

Old Timer

[NW_611]

Well, now that all the lines have been drawn and all the cowpies flung at each side, is there any chance that my probably half-baked questions could be answered, addressed, or at least curtly dismissed? [D)]

[Anonymous]

Let me see if I can recap 27 pages of BS in just a couple of paragraphs.

MichaelSol presents the theory that it was a mistake for the railroads to dieselize. He uses as his primary backup a study by a consultant who did a questionable study for an overseas client. The consultant, Brown, never did anything significant in the US.

We've had reams of people objecting to Sol's conclusions, and Sol has gotten ever more verbose in trying to refute these objections, leading to his getting somewhat snippy with TomDiehl, a couple of pages back.

One of Sol's talking points is wondering why nobody has presented any evidence to refute his conclusions.

I tried to make this point a few pages back: the rest of us do not NEED to present evidence to prove Sol wrong. The reason is that HISTORY has proven him and Mr. Brown wrong, and he just can't bring himself to admit it.

His continued efforts have reduced him in stature to that of a troll.

Old Timer

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
Again, not sure if precision control played a role in the steam vs diesel debate. We do know that now computer controls can make steam propulsion as precise as any other form of locomotive prime mover. Pollution control may be another matter though.

Yes, that may be true. But an AC motor has the lowest amount of maintenance required. Steam engines have rods, pistons, seals, lubrication, and so on. Computers will not replace these items, although they may help to reduce wear and tear on them. DC motors have commutators and brushes, items that will not function with any kind of dirt buildup on them. Again, computers will not fix this either. Not only that, DC voltage requires some fairly bulky technology to regulate, although DC drives have gotten better in the past 10 years. AC motors have very few mechanical parts. A simple squirrel cage AC motor consists of maybe three or four parts. That means you have less parts to stock. The parts you do have are standardized, and the only bearings you replace are permanently sealed. AC motors get expensive to control because the electronics are fairly new. Until solid state electronics made it into heavy industrial use, the only solid state electronics were in computers. Now they have designed components that can stand up to 1000amps without a hitch. They cost more, but the initial investment pays for itself in reduced maintenance cost. That is why new AC locomotives are more expensive then older DC locos. And unless a low maintenance steam engine is ever designed (and your kidding yourself if you think there is low maintenance in ANY power plant be it coal, gas, nuke, or whatever) I don't think that steam will be revisited by any railroad.

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
You missed the point Soltz, we're going for the "Comedy Thread of the Year" award. [:D]

okay, this begins to make more sense..... prehaps all is not lost. for a minute there I was tempted to become a truck driver just to screw over the rail industry. [banghead]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least

That is one thing i will always hate about steam.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least. Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me. (Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)
You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

We came close in Gettysburg a few years ago. [xx(]

Oops, almost forgot the reference (some good pictures, too, especially the buckled crown sheet.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9605.pdf

[espeefoamer]

It is amazing that this debate has been going on for 26 pages on this forum when the railroads setled the matter in the 40s and 50s. It took several more decades for the rest of the world,but they,too decided in favor of diesels(or in some cases electrics).Even China recently dieselized the last steam operated line in the world.I am sure there are still some pockets of steam left here and there,but for the most part steam has breathed its last. This is sad but true[:(].

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules
Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least. Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me. (Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)
You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

We came close in Gettysburg a few years ago. [xx(]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

You people are nuts. Do you really think complaining about studies, studies, and more studies is really going to make a difference? I just got done reading your conversation and I can't believe someone would acutally debate this topic in such a ridiculous context. I kind of feel like I have been cheated out of the last 40 minutes of my life somehow. If all of their "studies" showed that it was cost effective to go with a diesel engine as opposed to steam it sure seems to me that the railroads have already made that descision. I don't think they ALL could be wrong. But what do I know. I don't work in the industry, and after seeing this exchange maybe that's a good thing. You don't need to argue about studies to know the following:

You missed the point Soltz, we're going for the "Comedy Thread of the Year" award. [:D]

And it's SOOOO easy to get Michael going. Just question the almighty Brown study.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

I have no idea on which RR's threw what away, or what you are talking about there, but other than that the fact that it was 35 years ago when my files on this were put in storage, I have no desire to go looking for them. Took me three days and 15 boxes just to find the Brown study.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Now this statement seems to suggest that you >DO< have other studies, in addition to the Brown study. You don't know what you have in storage? Most people as methodical as you seem to be would at least have an inventory somewhere.

And while looking through those "15 boxes" you didn't notice any other studies?

But the Brown study is more authoritative?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[solzrules]

QUOTE:
Electric utilities don't seem to have much of a problem using steam as a mechanical force. We'd all be hunkering in the dark without steam.

True. But if you tried to pack all of the various systems involved in a power plant onto a locomotive chasis you would have something that would be in a circus, not on a railroad. Modern power plants have multiple systems involved in electric generation. They also have redundant equipment (back up compressors, double-fed electric systems, two or more generators, multiple burners, pulverizers, control systems, etc.) This would be incredilby uneconomical to fit in a locomotive, even if it is reduced to several thousand horsepower in scale.

QUOTE:
Just for the record, how many instances of modern (1940's) steam boiler explosions can you recall? I doubt that such a likelyhood was prevelant enough to even enter the calculations of steam vs diesel costs.

Just for the record? I can't cite reports to you that will prove my point any more than you guys can cite reports about the reasons railraods went diesel. What I can tell you is this. Steam is very dangerous. High pressure steam is even more dangerous because all condensation is gone from the air. A pin hole in a high pressure steam line will sever a limb without you ever knowing what happened. You won't see the steam because there is no condensation in it to see. Here is a little story for you that I have heard from employees of one of the power plants I have worked in. 2 employees were working on some catwalks on one of the burners at a coal fired plant (I will not name names for professional reasons. Besides, if you are really bored you can look it up in the OSHA incident reports). A steam line burst 40 feet away from their location. Both employees heard the explosion and ran like hell for the escape ladders, but by the time they got there the steam had reached them. They died of severe burns to their bodies as well as in their lungs. This was a low pressure explosion. That is one story. I won't bore you with 53 more of them because based on my past readings of this fiasco stories don't seem to much matter.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

You people are nuts.

Detailed discussions have no bearing on the collective sanity (or lack thereof) of the forum participants. Now, if someone was to act on this information and go out and buy 10,000 shares of Ralph's New Millenium Steam Locomotive Company, now that would be nuts.......

QUOTE:
If all of their "studies" showed that it was cost effective to go with a diesel engine as opposed to steam it sure seems to me that the railroads have already made that descision. I don't think they ALL could be wrong.

The salient point of this discussion was that (1) the diesel buyers could not foresee that relatively short shelf life of those first generation diesels, I am sure they expected the same level of longivity as they had experienced with steam and electric locomotives, and (2) GM/EMD did "sex up" some of the performance data in order to make the sale, promising returns on the investment that never came about. Because of #1 and #2 above, the railroads were willing to accumulate unprececented debt to finance the purchase of these first diesels, and the resultant industry ROI went down in the two decades immediately following the mass dieselization. They weren't "wrong" per se, they were just a bit short-sighted.

QUOTE:
Steam engines require a ton of maintenance. It they could build a low maintenance steam engine that was profitable for the railroad (or any industry), I think they would have done that by now.

Analogy:
Coal fired power plants require immensely more maintenance than natural gas fired power plants, yet the cost of the power coming from those coal fired power plants is now roughly half that of those natural gas power plants. What it comes down to today is whether the lower cost of the fuel makes up for the increased maintenance. If there was such a thing as production line steam engines being made today, it may very well be that their cost performance would easily beat that of diesels. EPA compliance would probably be the big hang up now.

QUOTE:
Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least. Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me. (Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)

Just for the record, how many instances of modern (1940's) steam boiler explosions can you recall? I doubt that such a likelyhood was prevelant enough to even enter the calculations of steam vs diesel costs.

QUOTE: You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

Again, not sure if precision control played a role in the steam vs diesel debate. We do know that now computer controls can make steam propulsion as precise as any other form of locomotive prime mover. Pollution control may be another matter though.

[ajmiller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules

You people are nuts. Do you really think complaining about studies, studies, and more studies is really going to make a difference? I just got done reading your conversation and I can't believe someone would acutally debate this topic in such a ridiculous context. I kind of feel like I have been cheated out of the last 40 minutes of my life somehow.

Ah, well, you haven't been around this forum long enough yet. You see, some threads are more for entertainment than anything else.

QUOTE:
Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me.

Electric utilities don't seem to have much of a problem using steam as a mechanical force. We'd all be hunkering in the dark without steam.

QUOTE:
(Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)

I wonder if they worried much about liability back then. They certainly do today. I think Steamtown in Scranton PA had to cut back on some excursions because they couldn't afford the insurance a few years ago.

[solzrules]

You people are nuts. Do you really think complaining about studies, studies, and more studies is really going to make a difference? I just got done reading your conversation and I can't believe someone would acutally debate this topic in such a ridiculous context. I kind of feel like I have been cheated out of the last 40 minutes of my life somehow. If all of their "studies" showed that it was cost effective to go with a diesel engine as opposed to steam it sure seems to me that the railroads have already made that descision. I don't think they ALL could be wrong. But what do I know. I don't work in the industry, and after seeing this exchange maybe that's a good thing. You don't need to argue about studies to know the following:

Steam engines require a ton of maintenance. It they could build a low maintenance steam engine that was profitable for the railroad (or any industry), I think they would have done that by now.
Steam is deadly. Studies don't show what happens to employees in a boiler explosion. Pray you never see it. It is gruesome, to say the least. Why anyone would use steam as a mechanical force when there are alternate methods is beyond me. (Could insurance costs have anything to do with the cost effectiveness of steam?)
You cannot control a steam engine with the same prescision as an electrical motor. Modern eletronics can control an AC motor with prescision unheard of from any DC motor in the 1st generation diesels, and certainly better than any steam engine.

I thought these forums would be interesting, but all I have seen so far is something akin to a sandbox in a playground. I think I am going to go outside, get some fresh, non-stale, non ***ing air. Maybe I will walk down to the Wisconsin Southern tracks and watch a railroad succeed with cast away GP38's on a track that the Milwaukee(Ogilvie) figured was worthless.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

And, what did they include in "costs?"

Was that like the B&O "study" cited by Tom Diehl? Limited to Fuel and water?

If so, I have no doubt that it showed cost reductions.

Best regards, Michael Sol

The information printed was based on internal findings, but was not presented in full detail, so I cannot answer your question.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

But, unlike you, I am also not offering them as proof of anything, because I don't think they were proof of anything. They are not worth my time, but you think they are worth your time.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So, the Brown study is worth your full support, but the railroads own studies, which you also claim to have, are worth nothing?

Would that be "tunnel vision" or "narrow minded?"

Actually, I'm not aware of all that many railroads actually doing studies, I think you claimed there was a bunch, I didn't. In fact, I think you claimed they all did studies. Maybe so, I haven't seen anything like that, and can't make the claim. I do recall a couple by GM/EMD. and vaguely recall two railroad studies. Maybe one of them was the B&O "study," hence my low opinion.

I do now recall that in his Dieselization study Th. Thelander looked in considerable detail at the Santa Fe, perhaps even going so far as to discuss their internal "studies" in his published paper.

So I am interested in all the ones you claim to have seen from "all the railroad engineering departments," and the specific methodology that you claim specifically refutes Brown. If what you say is true, that's got to be some good stuff, and I would like the opportunity to review it.

I didn't really see anything that ever did that, and that is my reasoning for inviting you to post at least one of the many studies you say you know about, have read, and presumably have, or for which you can no doubt provide a citation [no railfan magazines please] or at least an archive location.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

But, unlike you, I am also not offering them as proof of anything, because I don't think they were proof of anything. They are not worth my time, but you think they are worth your time.

Best regards, Michael Sol

So, the Brown study is worth your full support, but the railroads own studies, which you also claim to have, are worth nothing?

Would that be "tunnel vision" or "narrow minded?"

[MichaelSol]

And, what did they include in "costs?"

Was that like the B&O "study" cited by Tom Diehl? Limited to Fuel and water?

If so, I have no doubt that it showed cost reductions. For those same cost drivers, isolated from all other considerations, H.F. Brown can be quoted as showing the same thing. I demonstrated the same thing for the Milwaukee Road.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

I have no idea on which RR's threw what away, or what you are talking about there, but other than that the fact that it was 35 years ago when my files on this were put in storage, I have no desire to go looking for them. Took me three days and 15 boxes just to find the Brown study.

But, unlike you, I am also not offering them as proof of anything, because I don't think they were proof of anything. They are not worth my time, but you think they are worth your time.

You seem to feel there is some proof of "someting" somewhere. Since I don't know specifically what you are looking at or referring to, I'm not inclined to keep looking for and reproducing studies until you find one that suits what you claim you already know. That's kind of your job; it's your claim.

But by all means, if you think you have a study, which is what you and TomDiehl have claimed, and that it offers something to the conversation, I invite you, once again, to produce it and then we can talk about it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

I don't have any study, and have never read one.

All I have is something I ran across in a publication that explained how diesels for this company were really beginning to show efficiencies for the company by 1962. They used a "cost per mile" metric, and showed a percent reduction in costs for their locomotives compared to the previous several years.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cementmixr

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

I have no idea on which RR's threw what away, or what you are talking about there, but other than that the fact that it was 35 years ago when my files on this were put in storage, I have no desire to go looking for them. Took me three days and 15 boxes just to find the Brown study.

But, unlike you, I am also not offering them as proof of anything, because I don't think they were proof of anything. They are not worth my time, but you think they are worth your time.

You seem to feel there is some proof of "someting" somewhere. Since I don't know specifically what you are looking at or referring to, I'm not inclined to keep looking for and reproducing studies until you find one that suits what you claim you already know. That's kind of your job; it's your claim.

You and TomDiehl have represented to this forum that you both have knowledge of studies that support your contentions. By all means, I invite you, once again, to produce one, just one of the many you allege were done, and then we can talk about it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well after you said all such studies were thrown away when RR's cleaned house, you then proclaimed that they are all "garbage" anyway (refering to their content and not their physical locations in rubbish bins, I assume). So I asked if you'd read at least a few of them, since you made such a harsh judgement, and you made it sound like you had, but said you would not tell us about them until we presented ours first. Well why don't you tell us about the ones you've read, and show us how they were so flawed?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: believe that the cost analysis performed by the railroads were much better studies. there's no disputing that deisels produced higher profits for the railroads

Well, let me know when you guys get around to referencing such a study; or producing one, and we can look at it. So far, despite all the reference to "all the studies" I am still waiting to see just one.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

25 pages and we're still talking about that loser brown? geez get over it, he was a farse, his staudy was biased, he was a loser,

Well MichaelSol said he was a consultant.

There's one thing you two agree about.

Umm..you must have mis-interpreted that, I don't perscribe to the "all mighty brown" theology. In fact i'm highly sceptical of it and believe that the cost analysis performed by the railroads were much better studies. there's no disputing that deisels produced higher profits for the railroads and that there was major justificaation for abandoning steam in favor of them. now we've spent 25...err excuse me 26 pages listing the the "all mighty Brown" spatter over and over again, yet several times it's been very obvious (except to 1 or 2) that mass deiselization was in the railroads best interest.

Consultant----Loser

Six---Half a dozen

Different ways to say the same thing.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
So back to an original question of mine that has gone unanswered:

Did he consult with the railroad officials or management to see if they had any other criteria that they used in evaluating the decision to change types of motive power? Or was the selection of evaluation criteria his own?

This is getting pretty repetitive.

The name of the study is the ""Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America."

Not, "Economic Rationalizations for Dieselization," or "Why We Thought it Was A Good Idea to Guarantee Continually Falling ROIs for the Next Thirty Years Because We're Not Interested in Short Term Profit at the Sacrifice of Long Term Losses."

The Evaluation data was taken from the ICC Transport Statistics of the United States, a standard source of such data, compiled by the railroads themselves according to ICC Reporting Requirements. The Evaluation Critera involved looking at age classes of motive power, fuel use costs, maintenance costs, engine house expenses, crew costs, water costs, lubricant costs, and financing costs associated with the motive power fleet, and distingushed these costs between yard and road locomotives..

The B&O "study" you touted as "proof" only discussed fuel and water costs, which is why I do not believe that was a "railroad study" because I don't think a railroad is dumb enough to claim that, fully, as any kind of a "study."

Now, where's one of those many real "studies" that you claim you know all about, and the opportunity to discuss, in detail, an engineering refutation of Brown?

Remember: "Name of author, credentials, name of study, name of periodical, date of publication, or location of archive."

Best regards, Michael Sol

So you're saying that his professional arrogance led him to believe that he would think of every possible criteria for evaluating the ""Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America."

Somebody that thinks he is so infallable must not think himself human.

And sets himself up for failure when others point out that he missed something so obvious.

Source: me, and since I'm an "idiot" (as described by some legal professional who's opinion is also questionable) and saw this, his whole argument can easily be assumed to be full of such holes since an "idiot" found one so obvious.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

25 pages and we're still talking about that loser brown? geez get over it, he was a farse, his staudy was biased, he was a loser,

Well MichaelSol said he was a consultant.

There's one thing you two agree about.

Umm..you must have mis-interpreted that, I don't perscribe to the "all mighty brown" theology. In fact i'm highly sceptical of it and believe that the cost analysis performed by the railroads were much better studies. there's no disputing that deisels produced higher profits for the railroads and that there was major justificaation for abandoning steam in favor of them. now we've spent 25...err excuse me 26 pages listing the the "all mighty Brown" spatter over and over again, yet several times it's been very obvious (except to 1 or 2) that mass deiselization was in the railroads best interest.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

25 pages and we're still talking about that loser brown? geez get over it, he was a farse, his staudy was biased, he was a loser,

Well MichaelSol said he was a consultant.

There's one thing you two agree about.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
So back to an original question of mine that has gone unanswered:

Did he consult with the railroad officials or management to see if they had any other criteria that they used in evaluating the decision to change types of motive power? Or was the selection of evaluation criteria his own?

This is getting pretty repetitive.

The name of the study is the ""Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America."

Not, "Economic Rationalizations for Dieselization," or "Why We Thought it Was A Good Idea to Guarantee Continually Falling ROIs for the Next Thirty Years Because We're Not Interested in Short Term Profit at the Sacrifice of Long Term Losses."

The Evaluation data was taken from the ICC Transport Statistics of the United States, a standard source of such data, compiled by the railroads themselves according to ICC Reporting Requirements. The Evaluation Critera involved looking at age classes of motive power, fuel use costs, maintenance costs, engine house expenses, crew costs, water costs, lubricant costs, and financing costs associated with the motive power fleet, and distingushed these costs between yard and road locomotives..

The B&O "study" you touted as "proof" only discussed fuel and water costs, which is why I do not believe that was a "railroad study" because I don't think a railroad is dumb enough to claim that, fully, as any kind of a "study."

Now, where's one of those many real "studies" that you claim you know all about, and the opportunity to discuss, in detail, an engineering refutation of Brown?

Remember: "Name of author, credentials, name of study, name of periodical, date of publication, or location of archive."

Best regards, Michael Sol