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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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."
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
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl And you didn't "plagarize" from Brown?
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
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
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.
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!!!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.