Trains.com

Steam Locomotives versus Diesels

37405 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 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:45 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole laim is a wash.

You don't know what a "Professional Engineer" is, do you?

Pretty rare on railroads of that era.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, maybe you should enlighten us as to how a "professional engineer" is different than someone who graduated engineering college and works in the profession of engineering.

I had a hunch.

A Professional Engineer has passed and obtained a license for that credential. It is much like the examination that a doctor, a lawyer, or a CPA has to pass in order to represent to the public that they are qualified.

Unlike a doctor, lawyer, or CPA, the PE credential is not required for employment in the engineering profession. Well, actually, a license isn't necessary either for a doctor, lawyer, or CPA if someone wants to hire them; they just can't represent that they are licensed: that is, that they have met certain specific qualifications and passed an examnation that allows them to say they are a doctor, lawyer, or CPA within a given jurisdiction.

Perhaps to some extent in large organizations a PE is discouraged because it represents both a higher wage requirement, but also an easier "portability" into another company.

According to the National Society of Professional Engineers:

"Professional engineers (PEs) have fulfilled the education and experience requirements and passed the rigorous exams that, under state licensure laws, permit them to offer engineering services directly to the public. PEs take legal responsibility for their engineering designs and are bound by a code of ethics to protect the public health and safety.

"Engineering licensure laws vary from state to state, but, in general, to become a PE an individual must be a graduate of an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, gain four years of experience working under a PE, and pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam."

The FE exam, for instance, is a relatively straightforward test of engineering principles. The PE exam tests problem solvng skills, of the type that someone might hire H.F. Brown for as a consutlant.

From the May, 1999 Mechanical Engineering by Cindy Smith, "To License or Not to License, that is the Question":

"While the FE tests basic engineering concepts and mathematics, the PE tests an engineer's ability to assimilate math and the physical sciences and apply that assimilation to a problem. While experienced engineers have the knowledge to pass the exam, they likely don't have the ability to explain the solution in the time allotted to finish either exam, particularly the PE.

The failure rate on these exams is high.

"In 1994, ... 63 percent of mechanical engineers who took the PE exam failed. In 1995, the failure rate was close to 65 percent.
...
"While waivers for the FE [based on experience] are granted occasionally by states, waivers for the PE exam are rarely granted .... Responses to a 1998 survey of the state licensing offices, the most recent one done by NCEES, showed that only 13 of the 55 U.S. jurisdictions that issue licenses have a provision for long-established practice. And of those 13, only three—Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio—require fewer than 10 years of experience to grant the waiver.
....
"A license seems to carry weight with prospective contractors .... "We have heard stories from companies that the P.E. translates well, .... It means a whole lot more than some little Twinkie certification from a company."

To be a consultant like Brown, one must have a PE licxense. During the era under discussion, the credential was not common in the rail industry, it was in fact unusual.

Brown had a Doctorate in engineering as well. Qualified engineers wiith those kinds of credentials had no reason to keep working for a single railroad company; call them "underutilized" if you will, but because of their demonstrated experience and problem solving skills, they were more likely to end up in consulting work at firms like Gibbs & Hill.

That's why experienced railroads hired firms like Gibbs & Hill on important questions. That's where the best talent ended up.

Best regards, Michael Sol


OMG, he had a license to FREELANCE???? This just funnier all the time.

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?
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 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:35 AM
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, now drop it and let's move on. this thread has been dead for so long that it can be smelt on pluto! let it finally be buried!
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:35 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole laim is a wash.

You don't know what a "Professional Engineer" is, do you?

Pretty rare on railroads of that era.

Best regards, Michael Sol

Well, maybe you should enlighten us as to how a "professional engineer" is different than someone who graduated engineering college and works in the profession of engineering.

I had a hunch.

A Professional Engineer has passed and obtained a license for that credential. It is much like the examination that a doctor, a lawyer, or a CPA has to pass in order to represent to the public that they are qualified.

Unlike a doctor, lawyer, or CPA, the PE credential is not required for employment in the engineering profession. Well, actually, a license isn't necessary either for a doctor, lawyer, or CPA if someone wants to hire them; they just can't represent that they are licensed: that is, that they have met certain specific qualifications and passed an examnation that allows them to say they are a doctor, lawyer, or CPA within a given jurisdiction.

Perhaps to some extent in large organizations a PE is discouraged because it represents both a higher wage requirement, but also an easier "portability" into another company.

According to the National Society of Professional Engineers:

"Professional engineers (PEs) have fulfilled the education and experience requirements and passed the rigorous exams that, under state licensure laws, permit them to offer engineering services directly to the public. PEs take legal responsibility for their engineering designs and are bound by a code of ethics to protect the public health and safety.

"Engineering licensure laws vary from state to state, but, in general, to become a PE an individual must be a graduate of an engineering program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, gain four years of experience working under a PE, and pass the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam."

The FE exam, for instance, is a relatively straightforward test of engineering principles. The PE exam tests problem solvng skills, of the type that someone might hire H.F. Brown for as a consutlant.

From the May, 1999 Mechanical Engineering by Cindy Smith, "To License or Not to License, that is the Question":

"While the FE tests basic engineering concepts and mathematics, the PE tests an engineer's ability to assimilate math and the physical sciences and apply that assimilation to a problem. While experienced engineers have the knowledge to pass the exam, they likely don't have the ability to explain the solution in the time allotted to finish either exam, particularly the PE.

The failure rate on these exams is high.

"In 1994, ... 63 percent of mechanical engineers who took the PE exam failed. In 1995, the failure rate was close to 65 percent.
...
"While waivers for the FE [based on experience] are granted occasionally by states, waivers for the PE exam are rarely granted .... Responses to a 1998 survey of the state licensing offices, the most recent one done by NCEES, showed that only 13 of the 55 U.S. jurisdictions that issue licenses have a provision for long-established practice. And of those 13, only three—Louisiana, North Carolina, and Ohio—require fewer than 10 years of experience to grant the waiver.
....
"A license seems to carry weight with prospective contractors .... "We have heard stories from companies that the P.E. translates well, .... It means a whole lot more than some little Twinkie certification from a company."

To be a consultant like Brown, one must have a PE license. During the era under discussion, the credential was not common in the rail industry, it was in fact unusual.

Brown had a Doctorate in engineering as well. Qualified engineers with those kinds of credentials had no reason to keep working for a single railroad company; call them "underutilized" if you will, but because of their demonstrated experience and problem solving skills, they were more likely to end up in consulting work at firms like Gibbs & Hill.

That's why experienced railroads such as the Pennsylvania almost routinely hired firms like Gibbs & Hill on important questions. That's where the best talent ended up.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:16 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. But since somebody "spent a lot of time" crunching and massaging numbers to come up with a different conclusion, his word must be gospel.

Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

Well, this has become a content-free zone. You've changed your contentions so many times, and misread so much material, I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's change that.

Best regards, Michael Sol



More accurately, you've made it a content exclusive zone. If it's not in the obscure report by the almighty Brown, it must not be worth considering. Talk about tunnel vision.

And I've lost count of the number of times I've had to correct YOUR reading ability of my questions. I guess it would be easy to accuse the other person of "misreading." And since I don't agree that Brown is the final all powerful authority on something that happened 50+ years ago, I guess you wouldn't understand.

It's something called skepticism. He has made statements against what has, over the years, become the accepted knowledge. You have yet to show that he has any more claim to accuracy or truth than the other engineers of the day.

I'm sure I could surf around the net and find an engineering study that proves the world is flat. That just MIGHT bring up my skepticism again, though.
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 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:04 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole laim is a wash.

You don't know what a "Professional Engineer" is, do you?

Pretty rare on railroads of that era.

Best regards, Michael Sol


Well, maybe you should enlighten us as to how a "professional engineer" is different than someone who graduated engineering college and works in the profession of engineering.
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 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:15 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole laim is a wash.

You don't know what a "Professional Engineer" is, do you?

Pretty rare on railroads of that era.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 23, 2006 10:34 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. But since somebody "spent a lot of time" crunching and massaging numbers to come up with a different conclusion, his word must be gospel.

Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

Well, this has become a content-free zone. You've changed your contentions so many times, and misread so much material, I have no idea what you are talking about. Let's change that.

Cite your specific source, just one of the final reports from just one "of the engineering departments of all the railroads."

Provide the name of the author, his credentials, the specific name of the study, and either the publication it appeared in -- even if its as "obscure" as the Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers -- or the archive it resides in. Please do not refer me to Railfan and Railroad Magazine for any engineering or econometric studies.

All we need to do is just look at one of the many reports you say you have read, and then we can discuss it in appropriate detail. A copy of the ICC Transport Statistics of the United States is a block away, so its easy to check any disputed information.

As I did for you for both Milwaukee Road at some considerable time on my part, and as I then again did for you with Brown's Study, please provide a comprehensive summary of the key financial data analyzed, and the methodology for the summary as used by the author(s).

I am looking forward to seeing the information to which you have constantly referred.

Best regards, Michael Sol

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 23, 2006 9:11 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Odd how, at each turn when you claim something, you don't seem to be able to back it up except by random claims to anonymous engineers, writing anonymous papers that you don't seem to actually have and of which I am certain you have never read.

Best regards, Michael Sol



OK, on the statement that China is converting away from steam power on their railroads:

Big Steam's Last Stand
Railfan & Railroad, August 2002 page 44
Inner Mongolia's Ji-Tong Railway

Greatest railroad show on earth
Trains, December 2002 page 42
Steam in China

The last winter
Trains, June 2005 page 38
Steam in China

Now notice that I've referenced sources that many of the readers of this forum probably have access to and can read, unlike some obscure study published and available who knows where.

PS: These I HAVE read, as probably many of the forum readers have also read 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 Monday, January 23, 2006 9:05 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol
Odd how, at each turn when you claim something, you don't seem to be able to back it up except by random claims to anonymous engineers, writing anonymous papers that you don't seem to actually have and of which I am certain you have never read.

Of course, just as you know what Brown's paper says without having read it, it is at least consistent that you can claim to already know what all the railroad studies unanimously say without having read any of them either.

Best regards, Michael Sol



Of course I, as well as everyone else on the forum, know only the parts of Brown's study that you have cared to publish here. I'm sure all of us have access to ALL the obscure studies done on railroads over the years.
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 9:00 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown.


If you have any actual "facts" from these many,many claimed "studies" for which you don't seem to be able to identify a single author, a single publication, or a single coherently analytical thread, as to opposed to an obviously flawed internet rendition, I would be more than glad to discuss them on their merits. I attempted to do so with your B&O "study" which pretty much fell apart on its own, but oddly you don't seem to be able to do so with the Brown study, except by insulting Brown, even though now changing course yet again to claim you haven't read the study.

Best regards, Michael Sol



So I found a reference to a couple studies done by a couple railroads that happened to be posted on a railfan site. Since they disagree with the all powerful Oz, I mean Brown, they must be "an obviously flawed internet rendition."

Sorry but your concrete mind is showing through again.
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 8:57 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown.

If there is such a thing as self-inflicted ignorance, these comments pretty well sum up the case for TomDiehl.

Best regards, Michael Sol



I'm not the narrow minded one that found some obscure study, done by someone working outside the US rail industry for a foreign railroad that must still be running steam, if you believe the convoluted path that your "logic" has tried to take us.
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 6:48 PM
Dear everybody,
Take a chill pill!!!!

The last time I posted on this thread was around page four. I have been following it though. I must say that while I am not convinced by Mr. Sol, he has shown me considerable evidence for his case, and if I were ever debating dieselizing my railroad, I would take his points into very serious consideration.

If you don't like this thread, then don't read it.

If you don't like what somebody is saying, then be POLITE about it.

Just because it is a moot point doesn't mean that we cannot reap the benefits of examining history. Personally, I give Mr. Sol my koodos for standing up to 24 pages of evidentiary challenges and personal attacks.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 23, 2006 6:46 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown.

If there is such a thing as self-inflicted ignorance, these comments pretty well sum up the case for TomDiehl.

If you have any actual "facts" from these many,many claimed "studies" for which you don't seem to be able to identify a single author, a single publication, or a single coherently analytical thread, as to opposed to an obviously flawed internet rendition, I would be more than glad to discuss them on their merits. I attempted to do so with your B&O "study" which pretty much fell apart on its own, but oddly you don't seem to be able to do so with the Brown study, except by insulting Brown, even though now changing course yet again to claim you haven't read the study.

Odd how, at each turn when you claim something, you don't seem to be able to back it up except by random claims to anonymous engineers, writing anonymous papers that you don't seem to actually have and of which I am certain you have never read.

Of course, just as you know what Brown's paper says without having read it, it is at least consistent that you can claim to already know what all the railroad studies unanimously say without having read any of them either.

I admire your consistency, if nothing else.

If you have any numbers or methodology you wi***o discuss, let me know, but as for your virtolic attacks and empty arguments, I've got better things to do with my time, and I'm sure everyone else does too.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 23, 2006 5:52 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Let me ask: have you ever done a professional economic, historical or engineering study of anything, for a railroad, shipper, industry, government agency, college, or consulting firm? Have you ever prepared a professional paper on anything?

The reason I ask is because, at a professional level, these discussions are time-consuming and do require some research. Apparently, I'm the only one on this thread that recalls the debate on Dieselization, was able to recall specific studies on the topic, went through a number of boxes of materials to locate at least one of those studies, and spent some time scanning the studies for a couple of serious railroaders, while typing key parts of the study, including their context, for this thread.

Best regards, Michael Sol



I'm not the one claiming that some obscure study I found , which refutes all the other studies done at the time by the railroads, is the final word, and that all these other studies were baloney. I suppose the engineering departments of all the railroads just pulled these facts and figures out of their collective butts and came to the conclusion that dieselization was a good idea that saved money over steam. But since somebody "spent a lot of time" crunching and massaging numbers to come up with a different conclusion, his word must be gospel.

Sorry, but since Brown's study goes against all the other studies done at the time, the proof of credibility is on his report, not the railroad's.

Or do you have other reports to support Brown's thesis?
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 5:43 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
More accurately, what I DID suggest is that the Brown study makes no authoritative mention as to why they changed over to the diesel as quickly as they did. There's no indication that he interviewed any railroad executives that made these decisions, only used his own criteria to evaluate the situation.

So now you are claiming you have read and fully understood the entire Brown study, and that you understand what rail executives "fellt" about their needs, and that you know all about the railways of China, and that you claim that only two factors were important, fuel and water costs, because a railfan website that you plagarized misquoted and completely misunderstood a B&O study.

Interesting that even though the B&Q cite had to be complete baloney, because it ignored key cost factors of the dieselization process which I doubt any authentic railroad study would do, you defined it as gospel and offered it as your own statement that it "proved" that Dieselization was "a lifesaver."

Now you are representing that railfan websites are authentic sources of "railroad" studies, even as they obviously aren't, but that you also now know all about what Brown's study says even though you haven't read that either.

We get the picture. Loud and clear.

Best regards, Michael Sol



No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown. You only claim he's a "Professional Engineer." Hate to break the news to you buddy, but the railroads had "professional engineers" on their payroll, and I'll even bet some of them have the sheepskin from the same university as Brown. So that whole claim is a wash.

The only thing I'm arguing with is YOUR interpretation of Brown's report. Since the accepted facts since the 50's are that dieselization saved the railroads money, Brown is the one going against what is considered convential knowledge. The burden of proof is on HIS REPORT, which you've failed time and again to prove that he is more authoritative than the people that wrote the reports for the railroads.

And to assist your reading skills again, what I did say was you've made no mention that Brown had any contact or interview with railroad executives to ask if they had other criteria or long range plans to take on a short term loss for a longer term gain. I never said "I know" but you have yet to show that Brown could state that he knew. Or you know.

And once again, anyone that cites a study that disagrees with the all powerful Brown must be wrong because it refutes your opinion.

Maybe you should try reading the magazines that support this forum. Or are you going to claim that they're biased, too?
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 4:54 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
More accurately, what I DID suggest is that the Brown study makes no authoritative mention as to why they changed over to the diesel as quickly as they did. There's no indication that he interviewed any railroad executives that made these decisions, only used his own criteria to evaluate the situation.

So now you are claiming you have read and fully understood the entire Brown study, and that you understand what rail executives "fellt" about their needs, and that you know all about the railways of China, and that you claim that only two factors were important, fuel and water costs, because a railfan website that you plagarized misquoted and completely misunderstood a B&O study.

Interesting that even though the B&Q cite had to be complete baloney, because it ignored key cost factors of the dieselization process which I doubt any authentic railroad study would do, you defined it as gospel and offered it as your own statement that it "proved" that Dieselization was "a lifesaver."

Now you are representing that railfan websites are authentic sources of "railroad" studies, even as they obviously aren't, but that you also now know all about what Brown's study says even though you haven't read that either.

We get the picture. Loud and clear.

Let me ask: have you ever done a professional economic, historical or engineering study of anything, for a railroad, shipper, industry, government agency, college, or consulting firm? Have you ever prepared a professional paper on anything?

The reason I ask is because, at a professional level, these discussions are time-consuming and do require some research. Apparently, I'm the only one on this thread that recalls the debate on Dieselization, was able to recall specific studies on the topic, went through a number of boxes of materials to locate at least one of those studies, and spent some time scanning the studies for a couple of serious railroaders, while typing key parts of the study, including their context, for this thread.

You come blasting through with these conversations with half-connected thoughts, misunderstood snippets of someone else's misundertstanding of something they in turn read somewhere else, you claim a knowledge of an astonishing variety of things -- including today's revelations about railways in China -- without a shred of evidence to suggest a background, however slight, in any of this, and you seem to truly enjoy what appear to be lame attempts at sarcasm alternating with argument for argument's sake.

Any thought that you might give to what you are saying appears to come long after the words have been sent off. Ultimately, if it just because you like to argue about things you realistically know little about, I have to remark on how difficult it is to have a serious conversation about anything that involves you.

The Brown study is a lucid, professional study. It is based entirely on published numbers available from the ICC Reports, as well as Brown's long association with the Pennsylvania Railroad and with Gibbs & Hill. British Rail didn't choose him from a random list of names in the New York phone directory.

Whether he is "gospel" or not, he is credible in a fashion that you are not. You would be far, far more credible if you would settle down and address Brown's specific points, either critiquing his methodology -- the usual means of examination of professional papers or propositions -- or developing an alternative thesis.

Brown's paper was critiqued by professional engineers far better equipped to do the job than you are, or than I am for that matter. What I might "think" about Brown's paper, or what railroad executives might have "felt" is not relevant to the paper. It was designed to examine the results of Dieselization on US Railways, 1945-1957.

This is the kind of critique that many businesses or industries engage in after major policy or operation changes. The only thing unusual with Brown's paper is that a foreign railway paid for the study. Brown's paper is no sacred cow, but then again neither should Dieselization be the sacred cow you make it out to be.

Brown's paper rests, ultimately, on the skill, judgment and experience of its authors, as well as the soundness of their conclusions. They examined data.

They did not examine what "should" have happened, what happened 50 years later in China, the validity of decisions made by 100 or more men, or any of the other bizarre theories you have about how econometric studies should be done.

They examined actual, real data, data prepared and submitted by the railroad companies themselves.

That's the key to the discussion.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 23, 2006 3:31 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

This is proof of what? That somebody didn't understand what they posted, or that they didn't understand what Brown said?

It is the picture of the whole that is useful, but that is what TomDiehl has artfully avoided by his plagarized, carefully limited, comments which nonetheless led him, or someone he failed to identify, to broad and breathless conclusions about being a "lifesaver" for the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol



No, this is proof that you're the only one that feels that Brown's study is gospel.

Or the final word.
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 3:27 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
The bottom line is that all railroads in the world have abandoned the steam locomotive for either electric or diesel-electric. China, being the most recent, has plenty of domestic coal, had their own steam production facilities, and a full infrastructure to support steam operations. One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part.


What TomDiehl, and others, are really suggesting is that the railways of the United States made a decision as to the extent and speed of Dieselization based on considerations similar to those utilized by government railways around the world and that this justifes the US experience.

Best regards, Michael Sol



More accurately, what I DID suggest is that the Brown study makes no authoritative mention as to why they changed over to the diesel as quickly as they did. There's no indication that he interviewed any railroad executives that made these decisions, only used his own criteria to evaluate the situation.

And, since the US railroads were the first to make a large scale motive power change such as this, they had no reference or other reports of experience to go by. They simply had to evaluate the decision based on the knowledge and experience of the day.
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 3:19 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
The bottom line is that all railroads in the world have abandoned the steam locomotive for either electric or diesel-electric. China, being the most recent, has plenty of domestic coal, had their own steam production facilities, and a full infrastructure to support steam operations. One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part.

Well, there is a little arrogance in the air, for sure as I gather from your remarks that this isn't an area you have anything in particular to offer, but you do have the confidence to challenge a professional engineer on his own turf without any apparent credentials, experience or training to do so.

Best regards, Michael Sol



That there is. "One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part."

But I guess since none of the railroads had their own professional engineers, oh wait......
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 3:16 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, there are finally some "facts' offered, let's look at them.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

How about:

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines.

OK, that says that fuel and water costs declined.

Interestingly, the fansite that these were "lifted" from comments that these numbers are "particularly impressive" when you factor in inflation, not realizing that using percentage comparisons does, in fact, already factor in inflation. Apparently neither the railfan nor the poster above understand that. That may generate a sneaking suspicion that this was not a professional study.

However, assuming, arguendo, that plagarizing from a railfan website offers a proper means of discussing technical and economic issues, how does the information offered above differ in substance from Brown:

QUOTE: "Fuel costs

"Diesels in road service have an average thermal efficiency of about 26 per cent, compared with 6 per cent for steam. Although diesel oil is a higher cost fuel, the higher thermal efficiency of the diesel engine makes it lower in cost than coal for the same work performed. The cost of diesel fuel used in road service, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies has averaged 79.2 per cent of coal costs on a B.t.u. basis during the past ten years.

"The cost of fuel for all road locomotives was $366.7 million in 1957, exclusive of $23.2 million for electric power. Diesels were 88 per cent of total road power, using this proportion of the fuel cost, which is $323 million. This is 79.2 per cent of the cost of coal for equivalent service, which would have been $408 million, making the total fuel bill $451.7 million for equivalent steam operation.

"In yard service, with lower load factors and higher stand-by losses, the ratio of efficiencies is approximately 15 per cent for diesel and 1.5 per cent for steam, or ten to one. Diesel fuel costs, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies in yard service, have averaged 34.3 per cent of the cost of equivalent coal on a B.t.u. basis during the past 10 years.

"Diesel fuel cost $40.5 million for yard operation in 1957. This is 34.3 per cent of the cost of $118 million for coal for the same service with steam locomotives. Diesel operation was 95 per cent of the total yard operation. The total fuel and power bill was $43.3 million in 1957. With equivalent steam operation, this would have been $121.4 million."p. 271.

"Water Costs

"There can be no question that the diesel is saving almost the entire cost of water. Assuming the cost of $5.3 million in 1957 was for the 1,942 steam locomotives still in road service, the cost of water for 11,800 steam, locomotives would be $5.3 times the ratio of 11,800 to 1,942 or $32.3 million.

"In yard service, there were 455 steam locomotives still in service in 1957 and the water cost was $1.1 million. Had all the 8227 yard diesels been replaced with steam, the water cost would have been $1.1 times the ratio of 8227 to 455, or $19.8 million."

Brown says that fuel and water costs declined.

Does it matter to the honest reader that Brown discussed those specific issues, and reached similar conclusions, but that Brown looked at other relevant factors as well?

Or is it relevant that these statements would be presented as the "proof" as claimed, but only by ignoring the other relevant issues examined by Brown?

TomDiehl has offered plagarized comments from a fan website and attempts to suggest that it represents a contrary conclusion, even though the specific observations are virtually identical to Brown's on the points discussed. Only the conclusions are different, and are different only by ignoring the additional relevant data, pointedly ignoring maintenance costs, lubricant costs, financing costs, crew costs, and other data examined by Brown.

This is proof of what? That somebody didn't understand what they posted, or that they didn't understand what Brown said?

It is the picture of the whole that is useful, but that is what TomDiehl has artfully avoided by his plagarized, carefully limited, comments which nonetheless led him, or someone he failed to identify, to broad and breathless conclusions about being a "lifesaver" for the industry.

Best regards, Michael Sol



Unfortunately, the Brown study isn't definitive since it doesn't state or factor in what the railroad management felt were the important factors in the expense incurred with the change of motive power type. This is simply the opinion of one or two people in an engineering firm that aren't even working for the railroads they were evaluation. And, since the railroad management are the people that have to answer to the railroad's BOD and shareholders, their input, being ignored in this study, is a serious omission bringing about a true question of credibility.
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 3:11 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol


Plagarism
* Definition: When you use another person's ideas or phrasing without giving that person credit, you plagarize his or her work. Plagarism usually falls into one of two categories: 1) failing to reference quotations or borrowed ideas, or 2) failing to put borrowed language in quotation marks.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

And you didn't "plagarize" from Brown?


So I guess since the first line of each paragraph credits a study done by each the Pennsylvania and Baltimore and Ohio Railroads, they didn't receive credit?
No.

Best regards, Michael Sol
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, January 23, 2006 12:39 PM
While Michael Sol presents an impressive amount of data and conclusions, I would agree with others and submit that he would be better served by presenting his hypothesis to a business or professional journal where it could be better analyzed and critiqued than is possible by the admitted amateurs on these forums.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 23, 2006 12:24 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
The bottom line is that all railroads in the world have abandoned the steam locomotive for either electric or diesel-electric. China, being the most recent, has plenty of domestic coal, had their own steam production facilities, and a full infrastructure to support steam operations. One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part.

Well, there is a little arrogance in the air, for sure as I gather from your remarks that this isn't an area you have anything in particular to offer, but you do have the confidence to challenge a professional engineer on his own turf without any apparent credentials, experience or training to do so.

However, since I am apparently the only person who claims not to have enough information to discuss the railways in China, it is interesting to see the TomDiehl lecture on the railways of China.

Well, a little macroeconomic discussion is in order on the difference between American railways and government owned railways, including those in China.

Government owned railways, with few exceptions, are not required to generate a rate of return. In the case of Dieselization of American railways, the rate of return is paramount. When the cost of capital was at 1%, Dieselization was justifiable. At 3%, it became problematic at the rate that it was being undertaken. At 5%, it was unsustainable. At 14%, it compelled either nationalization or the complete structural overhaul of the rail industry.

No such criteria applies as far as I know to the railways of China (India, Botswanna, Zambia, et; al.). Cost of operations are paramount. Under the conditions of the 1950s, Dieselization generated an operating cost advantage in the United States.

Whether that is true in China today, 50 years later under different economic and operating conditions I do not know. TomDiehl implies he does. I do know that state industries there do not use GAAP, and that, in common with state enterprises elsewhere, there is no "cost of capital." The owner, the State, generates income through taxation as well as services. In that case, operating expenses are important, often inversely depending on political needs, etc,. and although even those considerations frequently yield to "national priorities" and even "national perception."

Had there been no "cost of capital" Dieselization of American railways would have been a slam dunk. I am surprised, based on the Brown study, that Dieselization of Chinese railways took so long. It should have occured there much more rapidly.

The fact that it did not occur very rapidly at all is suggestive to me that the Chinese experience is significantly different than the American railway experience; If American railways had interest free government loans, they would have Dieselized as fast as possible., or at least should have.

However, because American railways operate by a different set of rules, it was not, in fact, a "slam dunk" but to the contrary.

In China, assuming that there exists a cost/efficiency benefit that still favors oil over coal similar to that which existed in the United States in the 1950s, Brown's study says nothing that would contradict the idea that, if there is no cost of capital, that Dieselization would not be the way to go on a large system like that.

It would be true everywhere when the installation is independent of that capital cost. The fact that this happened everywhere where the installation was 1) government controlled, or 2) subsidized by foreign development aid, says almost nothing about the experience of American railways because, in fact, those experiences are entirely different from the otherwise virtually unanimous government operation of railways during the time period in question around the world.

Whether "no-cost-of-capital" projects somewhere else is relevant to American railway practice might more usefully be put to a closer test. As opposed to third world countries, where economic decisions are perhaps not held up as a shining example of what American railways should or should not do, those countries which did have the expertise, the financial controls, and the political will to make decisions based on more economic grounds, including consideration of cost of capital as a theoretical benchmark, by and large relegated Dieselization to the area where Brown found it most useful: yard work and branch line work.

Most modern railway installations installed based upon more rigorous economic standards than afforded to the third world countries that fully dieselized, more typically electrified. And from an economic perspective, steam and electrification had more in common with each other than either did with diesel.

What TomDiehl, and others, are really suggesting is that the railways of the United States made a decision as to the extent and speed of Dieselization based on considerations similar to those utilized by government railways around the world and that this justifes the US experience.

The fact that nearly all other railways could make that decision, with consideration only for operating savings but without regard to the cost of capital, hardly justifies in any context an American railway taking the same approach.

Government railways could do that, and did.

American railways could not. And did anyway.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 23, 2006 11:00 AM

Plagarism
* Definition: When you use another person's ideas or phrasing without giving that person credit, you plagarize his or her work. Plagarism usually falls into one of two categories: 1) failing to reference quotations or borrowed ideas, or 2) failing to put borrowed language in quotation marks.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

And you didn't "plagarize" from Brown?

No.

Best regards, Michael Sol
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Monday, January 23, 2006 10:20 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, there are finally some "facts' offered, let's look at them.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

How about:

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines.

OK, that says that fuel and water costs declined.

Interestingly, the fansite that these were "lifted" from comments that these numbers are "particularly impressive" when you factor in inflation, not realizing that using percentage comparisons does, in fact, already factor in inflation. Apparently neither the railfan nor the poster above understand that. That may generate a sneaking suspicion that this was not a professional study.

However, assuming, arguendo, that plagarizing from a railfan website offers a proper means of discussing technical and economic issues, how does the information offered above differ in substance from Brown:

QUOTE: "Fuel costs

"Diesels in road service have an average thermal efficiency of about 26 per cent, compared with 6 per cent for steam. Although diesel oil is a higher cost fuel, the higher thermal efficiency of the diesel engine makes it lower in cost than coal for the same work performed. The cost of diesel fuel used in road service, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies has averaged 79.2 per cent of coal costs on a B.t.u. basis during the past ten years.

"The cost of fuel for all road locomotives was $366.7 million in 1957, exclusive of $23.2 million for electric power. Diesels were 88 per cent of total road power, using this proportion of the fuel cost, which is $323 million. This is 79.2 per cent of the cost of coal for equivalent service, which would have been $408 million, making the total fuel bill $451.7 million for equivalent steam operation.

"In yard service, with lower load factors and higher stand-by losses, the ratio of efficiencies is approximately 15 per cent for diesel and 1.5 per cent for steam, or ten to one. Diesel fuel costs, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies in yard service, have averaged 34.3 per cent of the cost of equivalent coal on a B.t.u. basis during the past 10 years.

"Diesel fuel cost $40.5 million for yard operation in 1957. This is 34.3 per cent of the cost of $118 million for coal for the same service with steam locomotives. Diesel operation was 95 per cent of the total yard operation. The total fuel and power bill was $43.3 million in 1957. With equivalent steam operation, this would have been $121.4 million."p. 271.

"Water Costs

"There can be no question that the diesel is saving almost the entire cost of water. Assuming the cost of $5.3 million in 1957 was for the 1,942 steam locomotives still in road service, the cost of water for 11,800 steam, locomotives would be $5.3 times the ratio of 11,800 to 1,942 or $32.3 million.

"In yard service, there were 455 steam locomotives still in service in 1957 and the water cost was $1.1 million. Had all the 8227 yard diesels been replaced with steam, the water cost would have been $1.1 times the ratio of 8227 to 455, or $19.8 million."

Brown says that fuel and water costs declined.

Does it matter to the honest reader that Brown discussed those specific issues, and reached similar conclusions, but that Brown looked at other relevant factors as well?

Or is it relevant that these statements would be presented as the "proof" as claimed, but only by ignoring the other relevant issues examined by Brown?

TomDiehl has offered plagarized comments from a fan website and attempts to suggest that it represents a contrary conclusion, even though the specific observations are virtually identical to Brown's on the points discussed. Only the conclusions are different, and are different only by ignoring the additional relevant data, pointedly ignoring maintenance costs, lubricant costs, financing costs, crew costs, and other data examined by Brown.

This is proof of what? That somebody didn't understand what they posted, or that they didn't understand what Brown said?

It is the picture of the whole that is useful, but that is what TomDiehl has artfully avoided by his plagarized, carefully limited, comments which nonetheless led him, or someone he failed to identify, to broad and breathless conclusions about being a "lifesaver" for the industry.

And to OldTimer, personal slurs are apparently just your routine mode of communication, and you've used up nearly a third of these pages rambling on about nothing. Why not cut to the chase: do you actually have any substantiating data, if so, let's hear it, if not, stop cluttering a thread about Steam vs. Diesel by continuing complaints that it keeps discussing Steam vs. Diesel.

Best regards, Michael Sol



And you didn't "plagarize" from Brown?

As I said above, anything that disagrees with the almighty Oz, I mean Brown, must be wrong and has no meaning because it doesn't agree with his tunnel-visioned views.

The point is after 23 pages of "briefs" that flip back and forth about which factors were savings and which cost more is simply meant to confuse the issue. The bottom line is that all railroads in the world have abandoned the steam locomotive for either electric or diesel-electric. China, being the most recent, has plenty of domestic coal, had their own steam production facilities, and a full infrastructure to support steam operations. One or two men claiming that they can interpret statistics to prove the decisions of hundreds of men, over a period of 50+ years, were wrong, sounds at best, arrogant on their part.
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 Monday, January 23, 2006 10:01 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

How about:

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines.

The Pennsylvania Railroad serves as another example. A 1947 study compared the economic performance of the TI and Q2 steam locomotives to 6000 horsepower sets of diesels. (4 1500 hp freight units and 3 2000 hp passenger units. No distinction was made between builders) On the passenger side, a T1 cost $1.67 per mile to operate and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.30. For freight trains, a Q2 cost $2.37 per mile and a 6000 hp diesel set cost $1.94. These figures factored in maintenance, fuel, and other related costs, but did not take into account reduced expenses for labor with the elimination of steam helpers, reduced train crews because of multiple unit operation, and fewer trains required by using diesels. A 1951 study, again not distinguishing between builders, put the cost of operating a 1500/1600 hp freight unit at $0.88 per mile, and a 2000 hp passenger unit at $0.73 per mile. As these facts indicate, a railroad could achieve substantial savings in short and long term operating costs by dieselizing as quickly as possible.

With the PRR's conservative and "test to death" corporate culture at the time, I have to believe their figures.

Pretty good internet researcher. I saw those same identical quotes a few weeks ago. Are you offering those as your original research?

Best regards, Michael Sol


No. Since somebody above was "still waiting for statistical refuting" of the thesis, I need to repeat some things. He must be a bit slow.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,431 posts
Posted by Bergie on Monday, January 23, 2006 9:05 AM
One more thing... (and not just directed at one individual)

Just because you may have a difference of opinion (especially in a topic like this) doesn't give you the right to start with the verbal jabs.

The popularity of this forum (in my opinion) is built upon the respect you guys have for one another. It's better to agree to disagree than to start insulting each other.

Thanks,
Erik
Erik Bergstrom
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: US
  • 1,431 posts
Posted by Bergie on Monday, January 23, 2006 8:51 AM
Attention GP40-2

Please e-mail me at editor@trains.com . . . I tried to contact you via the e-mail address in your profile but it bounced (please update your profile too).

Thanks,
Erik
Erik Bergstrom
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Monday, January 23, 2006 7:28 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb
There is nothing emotional about the statistical evidence that 0% of railroads have come to the same conclusion as you. What "facts" do you need to see.The "historical truths" of the market place are self evident!!!

Judging by the record of ROI's during and after Dieselization, I think the statistical record quite clearly shows that 100% of long haul railroads "came to the same conclusion" as Brown, albeit by the painful truth of financial results as represented by the records compiled by the railroads themselves.

Best regards, Michael Sol

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:34 PM
Well, there are finally some "facts' offered, let's look at them.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

How about:

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad provides a good example. From 1945-1957, a 12 year period, the transition from steam to diesel resulted in considerable savings in train operations. During this period, total fuel costs dropped from $23.6 million to $21.2 million. In 1945, fuel costs averaged 18% of all transportation costs. By 1957, this had dropped to 11% of total cost. This continued to drop and hit 8.5% in 1960. The cost of water dropped from $954,000 in 1945 to $147,000 in 1960. These figures are particularly impressive when you factor in inflation. When you add all these totals up, you can see that the diesel was a lifesaver for the railroads at a time when increased efficiency was vital in competing with trucks, automobiles, and airlines.

OK, that says that fuel and water costs declined.

Interestingly, the fansite that these were "lifted" from comments that these numbers are "particularly impressive" when you factor in inflation, not realizing that using percentage comparisons does, in fact, already factor in inflation. Apparently neither the railfan nor the poster above understand that. That may generate a sneaking suspicion that this was not a professional study.

However, assuming, arguendo, that plagarizing from a railfan website offers a proper means of discussing technical and economic issues, how does the information offered above differ in substance from Brown:

QUOTE: "Fuel costs

"Diesels in road service have an average thermal efficiency of about 26 per cent, compared with 6 per cent for steam. Although diesel oil is a higher cost fuel, the higher thermal efficiency of the diesel engine makes it lower in cost than coal for the same work performed. The cost of diesel fuel used in road service, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies has averaged 79.2 per cent of coal costs on a B.t.u. basis during the past ten years.

"The cost of fuel for all road locomotives was $366.7 million in 1957, exclusive of $23.2 million for electric power. Diesels were 88 per cent of total road power, using this proportion of the fuel cost, which is $323 million. This is 79.2 per cent of the cost of coal for equivalent service, which would have been $408 million, making the total fuel bill $451.7 million for equivalent steam operation.

"In yard service, with lower load factors and higher stand-by losses, the ratio of efficiencies is approximately 15 per cent for diesel and 1.5 per cent for steam, or ten to one. Diesel fuel costs, adjusted for ratio of efficiencies in yard service, have averaged 34.3 per cent of the cost of equivalent coal on a B.t.u. basis during the past 10 years.

"Diesel fuel cost $40.5 million for yard operation in 1957. This is 34.3 per cent of the cost of $118 million for coal for the same service with steam locomotives. Diesel operation was 95 per cent of the total yard operation. The total fuel and power bill was $43.3 million in 1957. With equivalent steam operation, this would have been $121.4 million."p. 271.

"Water Costs

"There can be no question that the diesel is saving almost the entire cost of water. Assuming the cost of $5.3 million in 1957 was for the 1,942 steam locomotives still in road service, the cost of water for 11,800 steam, locomotives would be $5.3 times the ratio of 11,800 to 1,942 or $32.3 million.

"In yard service, there were 455 steam locomotives still in service in 1957 and the water cost was $1.1 million. Had all the 8227 yard diesels been replaced with steam, the water cost would have been $1.1 times the ratio of 8227 to 455, or $19.8 million."

Brown says that fuel and water costs declined.

Does it matter to the honest reader that Brown discussed those specific issues, and reached similar conclusions, but that Brown looked at other relevant factors as well?

Or is it relevant that these statements would be presented as the "proof" as claimed, but only by ignoring the other relevant issues examined by Brown?

TomDiehl has offered plagarized comments from a fan website and attempts to suggest that it represents a contrary conclusion, even though the specific observations are virtually identical to Brown's on the points discussed. Only the conclusions are different, and are different only by ignoring the additional relevant data, pointedly ignoring maintenance costs, lubricant costs, financing costs, crew costs, and other data examined by Brown.

This is proof of what? That somebody didn't understand what they posted, or that they didn't understand what Brown said?

It is the picture of the whole that is useful, but that is what TomDiehl has artfully avoided by his plagarized, carefully limited, comments which nonetheless led him, or someone he failed to identify, to broad and breathless conclusions about being a "lifesaver" for the industry.

And to OldTimer, personal slurs are apparently just your routine mode of communication, and you've used up nearly a third of these pages rambling on about nothing. Why not cut to the chase: do you actually have any substantiating data, if so, let's hear it, if not, stop cluttering a thread about Steam vs. Diesel by continuing complaints that it keeps discussing Steam vs. Diesel.

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