Muzzle Not The Ox

[M636C]

I should have added that the T-1s at the time were showing very poor availability, according to the "Trains" article, and the diesels were new and were less affected by the cold winter (except for the fuel in the steam generator to counter the effects of cold, of course.

So while the availability was much better than the T-1s, this was because the E-7s were a bit better than the best steam performance and the T-1s were a lot worse than the best steam performance (and sadly remained so to varying degrees for their whole lives).

The article commented upon the diesel maintainer asking the harrassed foreman for wheel turning, and the foreman refusing to believe that the E-7s had run the quoted mileage because it was several times more than the best of his recalcitrant T-1s.

M636C

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

I recall reading about the PRR's experience regarding their E-units versis the T-1's they replaced. It appeared that the wheels of the diesels were requiring replacement far more often than the steam engines. Then they discovered that the diesel engines were accumulating mileage five times faster than the T-1's. How could this occur if the diesel's availability was less than the steam engine's? The T-1steam engine was considered state-of-the-art technology after WW II.

Not real clear here if you mean wheel rotations, or miles. According to published statistics, the E Units had about half the diameter of the T-1, so it had to rotate twice as many times to achieve the same distance. For a unit to do the same work, on a rail-horsepower basis, the E-7 had to go 4 times farther to achieve the same amount of work as a T-1. That is, if a T-1 moved a given tonnage of freight 1,000 miles, then in order for four of the FT units to achieve the same movement, the total of four locomotive units is 4,000 miles, each unit traveling 1,000 miles.

If it is wheel rotations alone, then the T-1 would have approximately 262,000 wheel rotations, while the FT units, with half the diameter wheel, would have approximately 2.24 million total rotations to haul the same tonnage the same distance.

I can see why they had to replace the wheels more often.

You can see that the wear and tear on the E-7 diesel, to achieve the same amount of work as something like a T-1, was relatively high.

Herein, as well, is the "trick" of why measuring unit maintenance costs on a locomotive mile basis, which was a favorite methodology in certain kinds of studies, was much preferred over a unit maintenance cost per ton mile of freight moved, which you will almost never see in those "studies". Steam could always generate good numbers on a ton miles basis compared to Diesel, poorer numbers on a locomotive miles basis.

The article was in a past (1970s?) Trains Magazine (with a colour photo of the "Train of Tomorrow" E7 on the cover).

The article clearly stated that the E7s were running a much greater distance than the T-1s rather than referring to wheel revolutions. The article referred to the period in 1946 when the Baldwin built T-1s were being introduced. The T-1s proved very unreliable when new, partly due to their unfamiliar and difficult to access Franklin poppet valves with inside bevel gear drives. As a result of these problems, a T-1 was rebuilt with piston valves and another with outside drives to poppet valves. Apparently the problems were worse in winter 1946-47.

Compared to the new T-1s, the E-7s were a well tested locomotive, with ten years of development going back to the B&O EA locomotives. The units concerned in the comparison had been purchased for use on a paticular streamliner, (and this is from memory) the "South Wind" to Miami (?) as part of an agreement between PRR and the other operating railroads. There was some through working involved, and the E7s were able to run long distances on the designated train, but were able to be used on PRR "internal" trains.

One other comment was that the E7s used more fuel keeping the steam heating boilers going than they did on their propulsion engines, particularly when they were standing between trains in winter, and special arrangements had to be made to refuel them in a steam depot with only coal burning locomotives.

This was not a "fair" comparison, since only two E-7s working particular duties were being compared with 25 T-1s working general traffic, and suffering from problems of introducing new technology, while the diesel was an accepted and well proven design at the time.

However, in the view of the article's author, it was clear that the diesels were much more useful as traffic moving locomotives, and were a clear indication that the PRR had made a poor investment in the T-1s, which never really proved to be successful. It was the two E-7s, ignored by the mechanics trying to keep their unreliable steam locomotives working, that were earning money for the railroad quietly and without any fuss. Of course, in time the E-7s and their successors took over, because they were much less trouble to operate, as well as costing less to fill with fuel.

M636C

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

I recall reading about the PRR's experience regarding their E-units versis the T-1's they replaced. It appeared that the wheels of the diesels were requiring replacement far more often than the steam engines. Then they discovered that the diesel engines were accumulating mileage five times faster than the T-1's. How could this occur if the diesel's availability was less than the steam engine's? The T-1steam engine was considered state-of-the-art technology after WW II.

Not real clear here if you mean wheel rotations, or miles. According to published statistics, the E Units had about half the diameter of the T-1, so it had to rotate twice as many times to achieve the same distance. For a unit to do the same work, on a rail-horsepower basis, the E-7 had to go 4 times farther to achieve the same amount of work as a T-1. That is, if a T-1 moved a given tonnage of freight 1,000 miles, then in order for four of the FT units to achieve the same movement, the total of four locomotive units is 4,000 miles, each unit traveling 1,000 miles.

If it is wheel rotations alone, then the T-1 would have approximately 262,000 wheel rotations, while the FT units, with half the diameter wheel, would have approximately 2.24 million total rotations to haul the same tonnage the same distance.

I can see why they had to replace the wheels more often.

You can see that the wear and tear on the E-7 diesel, to achieve the same amount of work as something like a T-1, was relatively high.

Herein, as well, is the "trick" of why measuring unit maintenance costs on a locomotive mile basis, which was a favorite methodology in certain kinds of studies, was much preferred over a unit maintenance cost per ton mile of freight moved, which you will almost never see in those "studies". Steam could always generate good numbers on a ton miles basis compared to Diesel, poorer numbers on a locomotive miles basis.

[Anonymous]

Here's a couple of observations to keep everybody red in the face.

Water for steam locomotives does not just appear in the trackside water tower. RR's built resevoirs and water treatments plants in many places. There were places such as the southwest where water wasn't plentiful. The FT solved this problem. This was not why steam was replaced but it is a factor even it was a small one. The point is that steam required a considerable infrastructure to supply the elements it needed to operate.

Everybody is looking at crew size wrong. The conductor and two brakemen have nothing to do with operating the engine. The brakemen, myself among them, were replaced in the 70's and on by EOT's and roller bearings and defect detectors and such. This corresponds with the observation that crew sizes decreased faster after 1972. But we were discussing locomotive technologies. It takes two people to run a steam engine, it takes one to run a diesel. It takes six people to run three steamers, it still takes one to run the diesel (not including helpers, I saw that coming).

The number of miles travelled by a locomotive is also limited by how fast trains get over the road. The figure quoted earlier for diesel is about 250 miles a day or two divisions in the east. That doesn't sound too bad. I've had days I didn't get over one division in twelve hours. Also milage presumes that locomotives of any type are trying to accumulate as much milage as they can in a day. Not always so.

OK, please continue the entertaining yet essentially pointless debate.

[Leon Silverman]

I recall reading about the PRR's experience regarding their E-units versis the T-1's they replaced. It appeared that the wheels of the diesels were requiring replacement far more often than the steam engines. Then they discovered that the diesel engines were accumulating mileage five times faster than the T-1's. How could this occur if the diesel's availability was less than the steam engine's? The T-1steam engine was considered state-of-the-art technology after WW II.

[edblysard]

Keep in mind that even with the lead, or A unit dead, the B unit still responds to the control surfaces in the A unit...many times I have run on a train with the lead unit dead, and the trailing units still powering the train.
One dead diesel in a consist dosnt mean you have to stop the train, even if it is the lead unit.
Ed

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, for TomDiehl's example, since 50% of the units were different, A & B, if an A unit failed, bringing out a B unit didn't do much good. So, the redundancy had to be double that of Steam right off the bat.

That isn't quite true. In general, you only needed one A unit per set of locomotives. So if an A unit failed, you could couple up a B unit (even with FT units, as long as they had couplers and not drawbars).

This was proven by Santa Fe who purchased many of their early FT sets as A/B/B/B, at least until they could reach an agreement with the unions that a crew wasn't needed in the rear cab, at which stage they purchased a lot of A units to make up A/B/B/A sets.

Following was the actual production:

555 A units, 541 B units

If four unit sets, this suggested that 97% of such sets had an A unit on each end.

No,

Using that logic there were 270 A/B/B/A sets
One A/B set
and 13 A units which could be made up into three A/A/A/A sets with one spare!

The point you were making referred to redundancy:
I said that only one A was REQUIRED per set.
ATSF proved this by purchasing and running A/B/B/B sets.
The FT diagram in E.D. Worley's "Iron Horses of the Santa Fe Trail" shows the A/B/B/B configuration, as do several early WWII photographs.

I did know, and said, even in your quote, that ATSF subsequently bought nearly matching numbers of A units.

Your 97% figure would apply only if there were more B units than A units!

M636C

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, for TomDiehl's example, since 50% of the units were different, A & B, if an A unit failed, bringing out a B unit didn't do much good. So, the redundancy had to be double that of Steam right off the bat.

That isn't quite true. In general, you only needed one A unit per set of locomotives. So if an A unit failed, you could couple up a B unit (even with FT units, as long as they had couplers and not drawbars).

This was proven by Santa Fe who purchased many of their early FT sets as A/B/B/B, at least until they could reach an agreement with the unions that a crew wasn't needed in the rear cab, at which stage they purchased a lot of A units to make up A/B/B/A sets.

Following was the actual production:

555 A units, 541 B units

If four unit sets, this suggested that 97% of such sets had an A unit on each end.

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, for TomDiehl's example, since 50% of the units were different, A & B, if an A unit failed, bringing out a B unit didn't do much good. So, the redundancy had to be double that of Steam right off the bat.

That isn't quite true. In general, you only needed one A unit per set of locomotives. So if an A unit failed, you could couple up a B unit (even with FT units, as long as they had couplers and not drawbars).

This was proven by Santa Fe who purchased many of their early FT sets as A/B/B/B, at least until they could reach an agreement with the unions that a crew wasn't needed in the rear cab, at which stage they purchased a lot of A units to make up A/B/B/A sets.

The Santa Fe units were called model FS by EMD during this period (for Fourteen hundred horsepower Single units). There were some minor differences to allow the B units to run on their own, standard FTB units lacking some equipment (possibly batteries, but I don't recall right now) in the standard bar coupled sets.

Most locomotive terminals had some means of turning locomotives in steam days, so an A/B/B/B set wasn't a big problem, although ATSF clearly were happy to get A units on each end when it became cost effective to do so.

But you did need at least one A unit in every set!

M636C

[MichaelSol]

Well, for TomDiehl's example, since 50% of the units were different, A & B, if an A unit failed, bringing out a B unit didn't do much good. So, the redundancy had to be double that of Steam right off the bat.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom,

I think that steam had less likelyhood of road failure than the early diesel consists, precisely because steam utilized more preventive maintenance as part and parcel of regular maintenance. Conversely, those diesels had many more "maintenance free" parts that, due to the lack of *required* maintenance, were more likely to fail out in the middle of nowhere, e.g they didn't bother to check every wire and relay everytime, did they?

And again Dave you missed the point completely. Failure was the reason to break up a set of diesel locomotives to repair the failed one. The other units would still be operable and would not be dropped from availability. In this case, or any other where a single unit needed to be serviced, the multipler Michael applied to the diesel availability figure stated above would not be valid.

[Anonymous]

Tom,

I think that steam had less likelyhood of road failure than the early diesel consists, precisely because steam utilized more preventive maintenance as part and parcel of regular maintenance. Conversely, those diesels had many more "maintenance free" parts that, due to the lack of *required* maintenance, were more likely to fail out in the middle of nowhere, e.g they didn't bother to check every wire and relay everytime, did they?

[Anonymous]

One of the big reasons for decreasing RR employment in the period 1947-72 was the disapearance of the passenger train.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FJ and G

"goodyear and big oil crushed the interurbans and trolley's"

they didn't?????????????????????

[?][:(][:O][8)][:D]

And GM had nothing to do with crushing Tucker or DeLorean. [:0]

[FJ and G]

"goodyear and big oil crushed the interurbans and trolley's"

they didn't?????????????????????

[?][:(][:O][8)][:D]

[wallyworld]

It wasnt a conspiracy but there was very good, in fact, excellent salemanship by EMD, which, at times, make the facts of the transition period take second place, in hindsight. Selling the public first on diesels via the Zephyr was a tactic, which, in turn gave them a foot in the door to upsell freight power. It was'nt the hands down conclusion that diesels were superior when the transition began, although, in retrospect, it appears to be. Everyone draws their own conclusion as to the why and how, or for that matter, if the picture was as rosy as it appeared to be.

[youngengineer]

this thread is sounding a lot like a conspiracy theory, just like the one were goodyear and big oil crushed the interurbans and trolley's

[wallyworld]

Sometimes where the rubber of theory meets the road of reality made all the difference in the world when the first diesels were put into service. The theory of multiple units failed by the fact that the design of FT's did not provide for the isolation of an individual traction motor. This was especially true on grades where the loss of 1300+ hp made the difference between a four unit mu'ed consist being able to continue with three units. Individual isolation switches didnt arrive until 1946 with the F3.

[PBenham]

Michael Sol makes a telling point, as have some others which gets back to just how primitive diesels were in their early days. The difference in manpower attention needed by an FT versus an F7 is telling. The F7 had automatic engine temperature control versus the FTs manual controls( We can partly blame wartime priorities which limited the supply of thermostats to non-war applications until well into 1945), then there are the V-belt driven auxiliaries that were dropped by EMD after the experience gained on the FT(and early Es) showed up the weak link a v-belt represented. Now, carloadings did go down after WWII, but NET tonnage went up! How? heavier/higher capacity cars. A pre WWII car could hold 50 tons of revenue freight. By 1948 the average was on its way up to 70 tons by 1950, and 80 tons in less than a decade. In the 60's 100-ton capacity cars began to be introduced, along with Hi-cubes,and auto racks, which actually held lighter loads than grain or coal hoppers and gons, which have added on average 1940-1970, 10 tons capacity per decade. This was offset some what by roller bearings on all axles of all equipment, but that took time due to the resistance to roller bearings, which was stronger than the steam vs diesel battle/showdown.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by balboa110
Train crew size dropped dramatically also, but occurred over a longer period of time. What was the train crew size with triple headed steam? 10?
With three diesels? 2?

Where did you get your information?

According to Kent Healy's Performance of the U.S. Railroads Since World War II: A Quarter Century of Private Operation, the smallest decrease in railroad employment, 1947-1972, of all classes of railroad employment, were the engine crews.

Indeed, crews decreased by a percentage most closely resembling the drop in carloadings over the same period, almost zero correlation with engine type. Engine crew employment decreased by 48%, carloadings handled decreased by 43%. It is arguable that it might have been no different, under steam, with the lower carloadings with the natural consolidation of trains to handle fewer rail cars.

The crew number decrease compares highly unfavorably to the between 84% and 95% improvement in virtually all other categories of railroad employment over the same time period.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[The statistic being quoted wasn't "failure" it was "availability." In my example, the one unit that failed was in its 13% non-available range, while the other 3 units, since they could be operated without the one that failed, were in their 87% available range. The use of the unit quantity multiplier was, therefore, not valid because the other three units could still do their job.

Doesn't work that way.

Three units as a "locomotive" would have a 65% availability. However, in this instance, the failed unit is still part of the statistical pool. The availability rate is still 57%. If there is a backup unit sitting somewhere, then that is part of the statistical pool and the availability rate is 50%.

Now, the flaw above is the artful conversion of the economic impacts of the statistical problem into a practical problem on the road, for which, as was pointed out, very little data exists to form a conclusion.

However, we do know exactly what the economic data is, and we have a compelling statistical explanation for it.

Interestingly, the industry has a practical experience as well, shown by railroads attempting to get back to the road Steam model -- as much horsepower as possible in single units and as few "building blocks" as is feasible on the trains.

Because they learned the hard way that they couldn't fight the statistical inevitability of the original MU model of low horsepower units.

"Availability" means just that, how often the unit is available to do its job. Since one unit can be removed from the set and the rest of the set operated without it, there is no practical reason to say that the other units are not "available" for use. Whether the railroad decides to mix and match another unit into the set, or operate the set as a lower horsepower unit doesn't change the fact that its still available for use.

[wallyworld]

Found at EMD-Field Technician Notebook: The early days.

A Diesel engine is an amazing assortment of bolts, nuts, valves, heaters, coolers, expanders, contractors, and other gadgets too numerous to mention here. All of these are screwed and welded together to form a single unit. This resulting unit is expected to start out with below the usual grade of fuel oil and change it into BTU - then the BTU into MEP - the MEP into RPM - the RPM into BHP - the BHP into KWH. Then the electrical gear takes over and makes a BHP out of KWH and RPM out of BHP, and then, if everything is in working order, you finally get MPH. All of this takes place in a fraction of a second in the confines of an all-too-small engine room. This gives you a rough idea of the confusion characteristic to all Diesel Freight Units.

The Diesel engine was invented by a man named Dr. Diesel. The Writer has checked back into his life and character, and is satisfied that this was not done with any malicious intent, as he was a very fine man and loved the human race. Had the idea been left as he left it, nothing would have happened to it. The responsibilities rest upon the shoulders of certain individuals and corporations and Diesel Engine manufacturers, so do not hold it against Dr. Diesel. The names of these men can be furnished during the discussion of this paper, if anyone feels that they might want them.

There are three main classes of Diesel engines. Namely, High-speed Diesels, Slow-speed Diesels, and No-speed Diesels. The principal difference is that the High-speed Diesel runs faster than the Slow-speed Diesel, and they both run faster than the No- speed Diesel. The High-speed Diesel makes noise faster than the Slow-speed Diesel. A Slow-speed Diesel can become a High-speed Diesel by the simple act of speeding it up. Either a High-speed Diesel or a Slow-speed Diesel can become a No-speed Diesel by merely shutting the fuel oil off. This is accomplished very easily. None of the Diesel engines invented up to now will run without fuel oil. This seems to be a characteristic of a Diesel engine. The engine can also be shut down by placing a monkey wrench in an appropriate place so as to jam the gear train, but as this method is not recommended by the manufacturer's association, we will omit it in this paper.

A Diesel engine has several important parts that should be mentioned, among them is the cylinder. This is a long round hole filled with air that is covered on one end with a cover full of holes containing valves that admit fuel, air and sometimes water and carelessly placed tools. These valves open and close according to a predetermined sequence of events. The other end is plugged with a movable plug called a piston. This is free to move up and down within certain limits and would come out altogether if it were not for the connecting rod. This connecting rod is important, too, as it is what changes MEP into RPM, and without it we would be stuck with the MEP, which no one knows how to use up to now. This whole assembly is held in place by crab studs and nuts to prevent it from joining the bird gang. Each cylinder has four crabs, so we might be more considerate of the noise that the engine makes, considering the noise that you would make if you had the same number of crabs.

To start a Diesel engine it takes a certain amount of knowledge, steady nerves, and a certain amount of bravery. First, you set all of the switches in the correct position, with the fuel pump shut off. Then open the relief valves and pu***he starter button all of the way in. If nothing happens, call a Road Foreman, and he will call a Diesel man to put the starter fuse in for you. Then try again. Let the engines turn several revolutions in this way. The primary purpose of this act is to clear the cylinders of any water that might have leaked in through the above-mentioned holes, or any other holes that were not mentioned. But it also serves another purpose, and that is helping the engineer gain a little confidence before giving it the works. It also adds prestige on the part of the onlookers that might be standing around-namely, the fireman, brakeman, and any laborers and EMD men (if it isn't too early in the morning). After closing the relief valves and turning on the fuel pump, you shut your eyes and pu***he starter button again. If everything is as it should be, everything about you will begin to tremble and then shake and the ***edest noise that you have ever heard will begin, and then you release the starter button, for this noise and commotion are a sure sign that the engine has started. When the smoke has cleared away and the onlookers have returned, look wisely at the engine oil pressure - then drop the isolation switch a few times to hear it spit. This never fails to impress the fireman and brakeman. Of course, this will not impress the EMD men, because by this time they will have already gone back to their hotel so that they will not be around when the floating pistons let go. Then, before you forget it, go up into the cab and open the throttle to see if the traction wheels will turn over. It is most embarrassing to be out on the main lines, running 60 miles per hour, and find out then that the traction wheels are not revolving.

There are many confusing things about a Diesel engine that you will learn as you gain experience. Among them is the indicator. It is considered a good practice to take indicator readings at regular intervals. An indicator is a gadget consisting of strings, levers and pulleys. The idea is to get a diagram drawing on a piece of paper. This diagram has to do with MEP mostly. To obtain this diagram, the instrument is screwed into a hole in the cylinder cover, mentioned before. It is connected by strings and other suitable gear to an oscillating part of the engine. Here, again, steady nerves and patience is necessary. The idea is to engage a loop on the end of the oscillating string to a hook attached to the indicator. The best way to describe this operation is to compare it with attempting to thread a sewing machine that is underway. If you are lucky and manage to engage a loop in the hook, the string is usually broken. The hook has never been known to break. After breaking a number of strings, one's patience is sure to wear out. Then the proper thing to do is to take a clean card and draw in a diagram like the one in the instruction book. This card is called an inphase card. With much less effort, you can make a hand-drawn card known as an out-phase card. But the out-phase cards are practically useless. So are the in-phase cards.

Another confusing thing about a Diesel freight unit is the interlocks. It is fairly infested with interlocks. There is one that keeps the unit from backing up while you are going forward. This, incidentally, is the only useful one up to now. But there should be another lock on the unit, and that is on the door between the engine room and cab, so that when the Road Foreman goes back into the engine room to see if there is any water in the toilet water tank, the fireman can lock this door and keep him back there where he belongs, but will never stay. After all, the engineer was put on the unit to run the train, so why not let him?

Another confusing so-called interlock keeps you from starting the engine with the overspeed trip kicked out. Here, a word of advice - when you fail to start an engine on account of someone having stopped it by tripping this device, phone the yard office at once and report water in the fuel oil. While you are draining the water out of the lines, filters, pumps, tanks, and so forth, someone is sure to discover this thing tripped and he will, of course, reset it. Then you are ready to try again. However, don't forget to notify the Road Foreman that you are now ready to go, otherwise he might get tired of waiting, get disgusted, and go up town and get drunk.

There is another interlock on the starting contactors that keeps the engine from loading up when the starting contactors are stuck. For some unknown reason this contactor seems to be unusually hard to locate, but there is a movement afoot to have a seeing eye dog assigned to each unit to lead the engineer to the contacts, so that he can tell the fireman to tell the brakeman to get him a flagstaff so that the fireman can break the stuck contacts loose.

Meanwhile, the conductor will be walking many miles up and down, up and down, the tracks and wearing out his shoes, so it is important to hurry. If he is afflicted with high blood pressure, it is very important that you hurry, and if he has already used up his shoe coupon, it is most very important that you hurry.

Diesel engines have innumerable troubles. They have combustion trouble, lubrication trouble, and smoke trouble. It has also been reported that they have female trouble -- this report, however, was checked by the writer, and it was traced to a typographical error where the word "engineer" was misspelled "engine." It would not come within the scope of this paper anyway, so it will be omitted. It might be taken up a little later in the course of conversation when we try to determine why are Road Foremen necessary and what do EMD men put on their expense accounts.

The power of a Diesel engine is measured in horsepower. Why, no one seems to know. Therefore, if you want to measure the power of an engine, the natural thing to do is to find a horse, hitch him to the engine and see which could pull the most. Here a word of caution is necessary. First, horses are scarce, and even if you could find one, it would be another problem to hitch him up to the locomotive - for with so many Road Foremen around who resemble the south end of a horse headed north, it would be very easy to hitch the Road Foreman up to the locomotive and put the horse in the cab with the engineer. Not that the engineer would mind, because he would be much better off with a whole horse in the cab with him than with just the worst part of one. But if there was no Road Foreman in the cab, who would ever think to look back in the log book and report everything that the man in front of him reported. And, after all, that is the only way that the Company can tell if the Road Foreman has ever been on the locomotive, so it is very important that he do this so that the Company will remember to pay him each month. Anyway, getting back to the horse, it would be very hard to find one that wouldn't be scared by the faces of the EMD men around, and he would probably end up by kicking the nose of the unit in and going home.

So it would be much better to rely upon the instruments that the electrical men have invented. They will indicate this power in terms of Amps, Volts or Kilowatts, depending on the individual whims of the electrical designer. With a little arithmetic these values can be converted to HP as nearly accurate as by using a horse. Of all the power generated, some goes to work, some goes to friction, some goes to heat, and the rest goes to hell, which is all that you could expect under the circumstances.

The writer recommends that the prospective Diesel engineer does not take these engines too seriously, or study about them too much in trying to learn all about them. By the time that he becomes familiar with one particular type of engine, it is obsolete, because the designer has the thought of some more interlocks to incorporate into the engine. It has also been noted that once an engineer gets to spending too much time thinking about this Diesel, it is almost impossible to get him off of that track. The best way discovered so far, to prevent this mental derangement, is to lay off as often as possible. A dimly lighted bar is the best treatment for this type of sickness. If the bar is frequented by blondes or brunettes, the treatment is double effective.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[The statistic being quoted wasn't "failure" it was "availability." In my example, the one unit that failed was in its 13% non-available range, while the other 3 units, since they could be operated without the one that failed, were in their 87% available range. The use of the unit quantity multiplier was, therefore, not valid because the other three units could still do their job.

Doesn't work that way.

Three units as a "locomotive" would have a 65% availability. However, in this instance, the failed unit is still part of the statistical pool. The availability rate is still 57%. If there is a backup unit sitting somewhere, then that is part of the statistical pool and the availability rate is 50%.

Now, the flaw above is the artful conversion of the economic impacts of the statistical problem into a practical problem on the road, for which, as was pointed out, very little data exists to form a conclusion.

However, we do know exactly what the economic data is, and we have a compelling statistical explanation for it.

Interestingly, the industry has a practical experience as well, shown by railroads attempting to get back to the road Steam model -- as much horsepower as possible in single units and as few "building blocks" as is feasible on the trains.

Because they learned the hard way that they couldn't fight the statistical inevitability of the original MU model of low horsepower units.

[wallyworld]

Holding a screwdriver on a relay makes all the difference on theoretical availability as it did in the transition era.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding
My point is, MichaelSol is stretching things a bit to just disregard this little point .

Disregard? To the contrary, it was my exact point: what is the economic gain if the assembly line product costs more per rail horsepower to buy and costs more to maintain than the "custom" product?

Exactly what is the benefit of the assembly line in that instance?

And I do think it is stretching things to ignore that particular point.

Michael: I went back and re-read your post. I now believe I misunderstood it the first time. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

The root of statistical evaluation in this case is failure-whether it is steam or diesel motive power. I know of no statistics available of road failures comparing the percentage of each. I do know that in the early days of diesels, regardless if it was Alco-EMD-Baldwin-road failures were not an uncommon event. That is why field technicians were the norm on road units. It also depends on the quality of maintenance of steam the quality of which deteriorated in the transition period. PRR is the most notorious example. So with all of this in mind-both sets would be skewed.

The statistic being quoted wasn't "failure" it was "availability." In my example, the one unit that failed was in its 13% non-available range, while the other 3 units, since they could be operated without the one that failed, were in their 87% available range. The use of the unit quantity multiplier was, therefore, not valid because the other three units could still do their job.

[wallyworld]

The root of statistical evaluation in this case is failure-whether it is steam or diesel motive power. I know of no statistics available of road failures comparing the percentage of each. I do know that in the early days of diesels, regardless if it was Alco-EMD-Baldwin-road failures were not an uncommon event. That is why field technicians were the norm on road units. It also depends on the quality of maintenance of steam the quality of which deteriorated in the transition period. PRR is the most notorious example. So with all of this in mind-both sets would be skewed.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[One thing not considered in this statistical exercise is the fact that the failure of one of the locomotive units did not sideline the entire set, what the diesel manufacturers called the "building block concept." The failed unit could be uncoupled, leaving the rest of the set to operate, or have another unit substituted. Another advantage of the MU concept.

Adding a unit to the pool as backup does not improve the failure rate. Rather it required increased redundancy, at extra cost, and only degraded the overall availability statistic even further because then you have five units instead of four in the statistical pool, and the availability statistic drops to 50%.

Try as you might, you can't beat the statistical odds which worked strongly against the economic efficiency of the multiple unit concept in attempting to replace high horsepower single unit motive power.

The failed unit was rarely sitting in a yard, conveniently announcing in advance it was going to fail. It usually occured in service. Not too many standby units sitting on sidings along the way waiting to serve.

The "statistical odds" don't need to be beat. A single 5400HP steam locomotive has a failure, the entire locomotive is out of commission until it is repaired. A single 1350HP unit of a 5400HP locomotive set has a failure, the rest of the 4050HP of the set is still fully operational. If the failure happens on the line (which most do) the failed diesel can be isolated in a few minutes and towed dead in consist to the nearest terminal and set out. It will probably not be able to maintain the speed as if it had all units operational, but it still can clear the line faster.

If the same failure happens to a single 5400HP steam locomotive, it stops and stays there until it, and its train, can be towed by another locomotive dispatched from the nearest terminal. And towing a dead steam locomotive has to be done at restricted speed.

And you're right about one thing: there's "Not too many standby units sitting on sidings along the way waiting to serve," steam or diesel.

So, statistically speaking, which one will tie up the line the longest?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[One thing not considered in this statistical exercise is the fact that the failure of one of the locomotive units did not sideline the entire set, what the diesel manufacturers called the "building block concept." The failed unit could be uncoupled, leaving the rest of the set to operate, or have another unit substituted. Another advantage of the MU concept.

Adding a unit to the pool as backup does not improve the failure rate. Rather it required increased redundancy, at extra cost, and only degraded the overall availability statistic even further because then you have five units instead of four in the statistical pool, and the availability statistic drops to 50%.

Try as you might, you can't beat the statistical odds which worked strongly against the economic efficiency of the multiple unit concept in attempting to replace high horsepower single unit motive power.

The failed unit was rarely sitting in a yard, conveniently announcing in advance it was going to fail. It usually occured in service. Not too many standby units sitting on sidings along the way waiting to serve.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith
Regardless of whether Steam was or wasnt at that time more efficient than dismals, the long term advantages of dieselization was pretty clear to the RR company bean counters in the front office.

Then they ought to clearly show up in the operating statistics of the railroads of the United States.

The problem is, they don't, and that's where the "long term advantages" were supposed to show up.

[wallyworld]

It depends how you define sideline. A failure is a failure. A full stop is required to do what you describe. A new engine found and dispatched. Diesel consist broken-failed unit pulled. New engine coupled. Consist air brought up-tested. Failed engine towed by another engine. This has a cost. Building blocks work if they dont fall down.
Continuing with a failed unit is a better example but this too has a cost to be weighed.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

In engineering, which is what I did- a critical assumption is a assumption. If you read the few papers that are produced on this topic-steam versus diesel may not be as clear cut a issue as many assume.
http://www.5at.co.uk/Roger%20Waller's%20IMechE%20Paper.pdf

Most international motive power experts that came and looked at America's dieselization efforts came away with the same conclusion. There were some advantages, there were some disadvantages, but it was nothing like what the dieselization advocates claimed.

For instance, one statistical sleight of hand, which has already appeared on this thread, was the "availability."

One reason the rail industry is interesting because of so many things it does on a daily basis so well. That stands in marked contrast to strategic decisions by which the industry regularly seems to shoot itself in the foot, or wheel, if you will.

GM proudly claimed availability of 87% or more on its diesels, compared of course to the dismal 61-68% for steam.

Statistically, that was a falsehood; absolutely unequivocally false. But every mechanical officer in the country bought it.

Why was it false? Because, the statistic was only for the the single unit with a rail hp output of 1350 hp. But, it took four of those units to generate the 5,400 rail hp necessary to equal the single steam engine.

That meant 64 cyclinders, four generators, four sets of control equipment, 4,800 gallons of fuel, 800 gallons of lubricating oil, 920 gallons of cooling water and thousands of moving parts operating at temperatures and combustion pressures far in excess of anything on the steam engine the four unit set replaced.

Each unit, however, represented a distinct, independent statistical probability -- 87% availability. The law of probability for events with statistical independence is that the overall probability of failure is the multiple of the probability of each independent event.

The statistical availability of the four unit FT set, then was the multiple of 87%, four times. A four unit FT set, then, had a statistical availability of only 57%. substantially lower than the steam engine it replaced.

The substantially lower annual mileage of diesel locomotives compared to their road Steam counterparts is one of the puzzling artifacts of the statistical record which never gets an explanation.

Well, now you know why. One of the unavoidable consequences of multiple unit operation of low horsepower units was the substantially lower availability of diesel sets, compared to the steam they replaced.

One thing not considered in this statistical exercise is the fact that the failure of one of the locomotive units did not sideline the entire set, what the diesel manufacturers called the "building block concept." The failed unit could be uncoupled, leaving the rest of the set to operate, or have another unit substituted. Another advantage of the MU concept.

[FJ and G]

Wallyworld,

Exceptional article and subsequent maxims, to which might be added:

Learn every rule carefully so you can violate each one judiciously.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, the ultimate costs per 1000 tons of freight moved showed that this proposition wasn't true. The costs of steam were about the same as the costs of diesel. That included labor. Notwithstanding the mass production arguments, diesel locomotives cost more per rail hp to purchase than steam.

Therefore, the rate of return had to be less.

Why do you think that was?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not so sure you can just ignore that point, just for the sake of supporting your idea?

Not just that point, but the point of standardized (interchangable) parts threw a BIG advantage to the diesel. For example, you couldn't order a new piston for your steam locomotive from the manufacturer, take it out of the box (crate?) and install it, it had to be machined to fit. Or the manufacturer had to custom machine it for you to your dimensions. You could order a new piston for your diesel from EMD and it would be a direct fit right from the box. One of the major reasons that many railroad machine shops closed down after the conversion as documented in "Diesel Victory," a recent special issue from Classic Trains.

Persoanlly I always felt THIS was the REAL reason why RRs chose dismals over steam. Factor in the labor intensive nature of steam, virtually every steam locomotive being a custom built machine with very few (if any) interchangable parts, and the need to maintain a large labor force (and a large retirement fund for them), in very large machine shops spread across the country, large raw materials stockpile at each one, just to operate steam engines which did require frequent, even nightly labor intensive maintenance, versus an engine that is built on an assembly line using interchangable parts that fit every other engine in the same model thus much more easily repaired , can be parked on a siding for days on end until needed then started up like a car, and can have units added or subtracted depending on the job. Just this alone would be compelling reasons to switch.

Regardless of whether Steam was or wasnt at that time more efficient than dismals, the long term advantages of dieselization was pretty clear to the RR company bean counters in the front office.

[wallyworld]

SLM now DLM manufactures new steam in the EU. Compared to circa 1930 state of the art there
has been a 36% power increase, an 82% power to weight ratio and a 46% decrease in fuel consumption. If you read The Guardian,The Economist, New Scientist or The Engineer articles-you see how little coverage this has received in this country-none. Engines in service measure lower rates of noxious gases than diesels. Materials and techniques not yet invented in 1930 are now available. Again, stereotypes prevail.
Attempts by DOE to fuel diesels with micronized coal have failed. Steam can run on coal, oil, biomass, etc. Again,fewer moving parts. Arcane technology? I think not.
Website for DLM
http://www.dlm-ag.ch/

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

In engineering, which is what I did- a critical assumption is a assumption. If you read the few papers that are produced on this topic-steam versus diesel may not be as clear cut a issue as many assume.
http://www.5at.co.uk/Roger%20Waller's%20IMechE%20Paper.pdf

Most international motive power experts that came and looked at America's dieselization efforts came away with the same conclusion. There were some advantages, there were some disadvantages, but it was nothing like what the dieselization advocates claimed.

For instance, one statistical sleight of hand, which has already appeared on this thread, was the "availability."

One reason the rail industry is interesting because of so many things it does on a daily basis so well. That stands in marked contrast to strategic decisions by which the industry regularly seems to shoot itself in the foot, or wheel, if you will.

GM proudly claimed availability of 87% or more on its diesels, compared of course to the dismal 61-68% for steam.

Statistically, that was a falsehood; absolutely unequivocally false. But every mechanical officer in the country bought it.

Why was it false? Because, the statistic was only for the the single unit with a rail hp output of 1350 hp. But, it took four of those units to generate the 5,400 rail hp necessary to equal the single steam engine.

That meant 64 cyclinders, four generators, sixteen traction motors, sixteen axles and bearing sets, four sets of control equipment, 4,800 gallons of fuel, 800 gallons of lubricating oil, 920 gallons of cooling water and thousands of moving parts operating at temperatures and combustion pressures far in excess of anything on the steam engine the four unit set replaced.

Each unit, however, represented a distinct, independent statistical probability -- 87% availability. The law of probability for events with statistical independence is that the overall probability of failure is the multiple of the probability of each independent event.

The statistical availability of the four unit FT set, then was the multiple of 87%, four times. A four unit FT set, then, had a statistical availability of only 57%. substantially lower than the steam engine it replaced.

The substantially lower annual mileage of diesel locomotives compared to their road Steam counterparts is one of the puzzling artifacts of the statistical record which never gets an explanation.

Well, now you know why. One of the unavoidable consequences of multiple unit operation of low horsepower units was the substantially lower availability of diesel sets, compared to the steam they replaced.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding
My point is, MichaelSol is stretching things a bit to just disregard this little point .

Disregard? To the contrary, it was my exact point: what is the economic gain if the assembly line product costs more per rail horsepower to buy and costs more to maintain than the "custom" product?

Exactly what is the benefit of the assembly line in that instance?

And I do think it is stretching things to ignore that particular point.

[wallyworld]

In engineering, which is what I did- a critical assumption is a assumption. If you read the few papers that are produced on this topic-steam versus diesel may not be as clear cut a issue as many assume.
http://www.5at.co.uk/Roger%20Waller's%20IMechE%20Paper.pdf

[youngengineer]

llok its labor costs everytime, why did the grocery stores go to self scan technology, because it was cheaper to buy the checkstands? because the checkstands were more accurate? Because they are the technology of the day? NO,NO,and NO, because now one checker can run 2-3-4 checkstands at one time therefore reducing the cost of labor. simply the cost of labor is at the root of 99% of innovation in america. If you have fewer employees you have lower labor costs, and can produce your widgets, or services for less.

thank you

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, the ultimate costs per 1000 tons of freight moved showed that this proposition wasn't true. The costs of steam were about the same as the costs of diesel. That included labor. Notwithstanding the mass production arguments, diesel locomotives cost more per rail hp to purchase than steam.

Therefore, the rate of return had to be less.

Why do you think that was?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not so sure you can just ignore that point, just for the sake of supporting your idea?

So why do you think steam couldn't/can't be mass produced on an assembly line? The fact that steam was custom built back then was just the modus operandi of the steam builders. Remember, the Ford auto plants were only a decade or two old back then, so mass production en masse for US producers wasn't yet the prefered way. FYI, one of the primary reasons Baldwin failed so miserably in its diesel production was that it tried to build diesels the same way they built steam, e.g. customization.

There's nothing to say that they couldn't be produced on an assembly line. I'm sure China did that to some extent later. Note, also, that the Ford auto plants you mention also ran the one-at-a-time car builders out of business. My point is, MichaelSol is stretching things a bit to just disregard this little point .

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Or back to the original question: How many of even the latest steam locomotives have the capabilty of being MU'd?

It is true that diesels had to have the mu-ing capability to provide the same horsepower as a single unit steam.

What is interesting is how little of a change mu-ing made to train operation; the train size statistics changed little.

But the basis of this discussion goes back to one fact: the functions of a steam locomotive were manually monitored and controlled by the Engineer and Fireman. All these functions would have to be automated and proven reliable before the operator(s) could be removed from the cab. Then the advantage of MUing would be realized in steam.
Single unit diesels have reached the horsepower of even the Big Boy, and depending on the labor agreements and federal regulations, can be operated by a single operator. Something that couldn't happen with a steam locomotive.

[Anonymous]

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
Or back to the original question: How many of even the latest steam locomotives have the capabilty of being MU'd?

It is true that diesels had to have the mu-ing capability to provide the same horsepower as a single unit steam.

What is interesting is how little of a change mu-ing made to train operation; the train size statistics changed little.

[wallyworld]

Its called an articulated engine in steam terms.

http://www.martynbane.co.uk/modernsteam/jmullaney/multipleunitcapability.pdf

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
If existing low water alarms were reliable at this point in history, why did boilers still have sight glasses and try cocks?

How many steam engines were built with 1950's technology?

Or back to the original question: How many of even the latest steam locomotives have the capabilty of being MU'd?

[wallyworld]

The simplest answer is usually the correct one. It has been said that "steam designers handed the knife by the handle" to the diesel. When the transition curve reaches a critical mass as it certainly was, in the 1950's, everyone was scrambling, particularly the steam builders, to follow the curve. it could have been done but by that time steam was stereotyped as a relic, not an alternative.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
If existing low water alarms were reliable at this point in history, why did boilers still have sight glasses and try cocks?

How many steam engines were built with 1950's technology?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
As I stated above, not with a crown sheet failure, which would be more possible if nobody is in the cab to monitor the boiler water level, especially with the technology of the 50's.

The technology of the 50s. Hmmm. The transistor, satelites in space, the jet engine, high temperature, high impact ceramics, the first commercial computers, the first production of electricity from atomic energy, super glue, power steering, the videotape recorder, bar codes, radial tires, vaccine for poliomyelitis, color TV, teflon, fiber optics, microwave ovens, hovercrafts, the laser, integrated circuits, etc. etc.

But with "the technology of the 50s" they couldn't figure out a way to monitor boiler water levels?

I'm skeptical.

If existing low water alarms were reliable at this point in history, why did boilers still have sight glasses and try cocks?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
As I stated above, not with a crown sheet failure, which would be more possible if nobody is in the cab to monitor the boiler water level, especially with the technology of the 50's.

The technology of the 50s. Hmmm. The transistor, satelites in space, the jet engine, high temperature, high impact ceramics, the first commercial computers, the first production of electricity from atomic energy, super glue, power steering, the videotape recorder, bar codes, radial tires, vaccine for poliomyelitis, color TV, teflon, fiber optics, microwave ovens, hovercrafts, the laser, integrated circuits, etc. etc.

But with "the technology of the 50s" they couldn't figure out a way to monitor boiler water levels?

I'm skeptical.

[wallyworld]

There is a curve in transition where what was cheap and plentiful became scarce and expensive. N&W faced with dwindling suppliers of auxillary devices threw the towel down. One of steams advantages was simplicity of design. Fewer moving parts. Some of the problems associated with late steam had more to due with the quality of use than design flaws. this is especially true when the curve of transition creates a situation where steam and diesels have engineers moving between both, and then, driving steam become a rarer experience-throw in a new steam concept late in the game-and what happens? A T1 developed a reputation for slipping but with some sand and a light hand on the throttle, many engineers had no problem. Wardale trained the crew for the Red Devil, the road placed unqualified engineers on the board-performance fell-simple things like keeping the firebox shut. There are alot more factors than it is commonly assumed as in the public image of steam, which, in of itself is a paradox. How many shows or movies show a steam locomotive rather than a diesel when portraying railroads? On the other hand it reinforces the image of a 19th century technology, when, on the other hand many a decision of conversion became reality based on public reaction ie The Burlington Zephr, at the time, of modernity. A self fulfilling impression. If you go to the Alco page of the Mohawk Chapter you can read a recollections of a field technician who rode the early diesels. They had a consist of diesels on a passenger train pacing a steam powered equivilent on the NYC. He was quite surprised as he said hmm, the engineer on the steam engine, "must have hooked her up", because she rapidly pulled away and vanished over the horizon. Impressions count- quality of use counts.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

During dieselization, overall speed limits were reduced on equivalent track from the standards prevalent during the steam era. Why would that happen if Diesels were easier on the track structure than Steam?

Best regards, Michael Sol

To make a true comparison on this point, you'd have to find in the Rule Book, during the transition period, that a steam locomotive had a higher speed limit than a diesel locomotive on the same segment of track during the same period of time.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, the ultimate costs per 1000 tons of freight moved showed that this proposition wasn't true. The costs of steam were about the same as the costs of diesel. That included labor. Notwithstanding the mass production arguments, diesel locomotives cost more per rail hp to purchase than steam.

Therefore, the rate of return had to be less.

Why do you think that was?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not so sure you can just ignore that point, just for the sake of supporting your idea?

Not just that point, but the point of standardized (interchangable) parts threw a BIG advantage to the diesel. For example, you couldn't order a new piston for your steam locomotive from the manufacturer, take it out of the box (crate?) and install it, it had to be machined to fit. Or the manufacturer had to custom machine it for you to your dimensions. You could order a new piston for your diesel from EMD and it would be a direct fit right from the box. One of the major reasons that many railroad machine shops closed down after the conversion as documented in "Diesel Victory," a recent special issue from Classic Trains.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, the ultimate costs per 1000 tons of freight moved showed that this proposition wasn't true. The costs of steam were about the same as the costs of diesel. That included labor. Notwithstanding the mass production arguments, diesel locomotives cost more per rail hp to purchase than steam.

Therefore, the rate of return had to be less.

Why do you think that was?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not so sure you can just ignore that point, just for the sake of supporting your idea?

So why do you think steam couldn't/can't be mass produced on an assembly line? The fact that steam was custom built back then was just the modus operandi of the steam builders. Remember, the Ford auto plants were only a decade or two old back then, so mass production en masse for US producers wasn't yet the prefered way. FYI, one of the primary reasons Baldwin failed so miserably in its diesel production was that it tried to build diesels the same way they built steam, e.g. customization.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, the ultimate costs per 1000 tons of freight moved showed that this proposition wasn't true. The costs of steam were about the same as the costs of diesel. That included labor. Notwithstanding the mass production arguments, diesel locomotives cost more per rail hp to purchase than steam.

Therefore, the rate of return had to be less.

Why do you think that was?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not so sure you can just ignore that point, just for the sake of supporting your idea?

Well, if mass-production is advanced as a "plus," but the mass-produced item costs more, what can you say about it?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Well, the ultimate costs per 1000 tons of freight moved showed that this proposition wasn't true. The costs of steam were about the same as the costs of diesel. That included labor. Notwithstanding the mass production arguments, diesel locomotives cost more per rail hp to purchase than steam.

Therefore, the rate of return had to be less.

Why do you think that was?

Best regards, Michael Sol

I'm not so sure you can just ignore that point, just for the sake of supporting your idea?

[wallyworld]

Sometimes arguments for and against steam are discounted without a hearing when faced with predjudice.There are other examples of roads converting to diesel power outside of this country, that took place long after the the last wheel had turned here,South Africa is a good example, China very recently. Has anyone seen Goodheart's Steam Fever? It was shot on film stock using commercial equipment rather than video tape.There are several shots of Wardales Red Devil flying past. It sounded like a sewing machine whirring away. Vast Improvements in that engine. In Wardale's book, The Red Devil, here is someone, in example after example, where his improvements were ignored.once the decision to convert had been made. Logic, interestingly, often went out the door while desired appearances of modernity over rode any argument. The last, in China on the Q, ranged from uncooperative to hostile once the decision had been made although the work was funded. Whats interesting in all this, is the psychology of of fear of the government roads-appearing to be behind the times.It was a common thread in these tales.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by youngengineer

I think with this discussion one fact is overlooked, the most exspensive part of the railroad is manpower. Its not fuel, track maintenance, water, what ever else you want to try to average together and compare. Today your typical train has a conductor and an engineer, if you bring back the steam engine you must add a fireman, therefore steam is no longer viable. In the near future it looks like that a train may have only one person on board, an engineer, this would never be possible with a steam engine, once again steam will always be found in museums only. Somewhere down the road in the future, I know i will be shunned for this comment, diesels may be run by satelite, need for anyone on the train itself possibly nill, once again steam engine, no one on board run by computers not gonna happen.

One point that I had not seen brought up was the fact that steam engines are 1 of a kind, they dont lend themselves to mass production, hence one of the major problems for baldwin, alco and the like was lack of mass production capacity, everything was hand built. The need for interchangeable parts is necessary for a modern product, if you cant change out parts easily than the cost of replacement is astronomical.

I could be wrong and Im sure I will be shown the errors of my ways but I think that personel costs alone would doom the steam engine today.

Well, the ultimate costs per 1000 tons of freight moved showed that this proposition wasn't true. The costs of steam were about the same as the costs of diesel. considerably less if you used comparable fleet numbers. That included labor. Notwithstanding the mass production arguments, diesel locomotives cost more per rail hp to purchase than steam.

Therefore, the rate of return had to be less.

Why do you think that was?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[youngengineer]

I think with this discussion one fact is overlooked, the most exspensive part of the railroad is manpower. Its not fuel, track maintenance, water, what ever else you want to try to average together and compare. Today your typical train has a conductor and an engineer, if you bring back the steam engine you must add a fireman, therefore steam is no longer viable. In the near future it looks like that a train may have only one person on board, an engineer, this would never be possible with a steam engine, once again steam will always be found in museums only. Somewhere down the road in the future, I know i will be shunned for this comment, diesels may be run by satelite, need for anyone on the train itself possibly nill, once again steam engine, no one on board run by computers not gonna happen.

One point that I had not seen brought up was the fact that steam engines are 1 of a kind, they dont lend themselves to mass production, hence one of the major problems for baldwin, alco and the like was lack of mass production capacity, everything was hand built. The need for interchangeable parts is necessary for a modern product, if you cant change out parts easily than the cost of replacement is astronomical.

I could be wrong and Im sure I will be shown the errors of my ways but I think that personel costs alone would doom the steam engine today.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ardenastationmaster
[What did it for the diesel was availability. The diesel, even in its formative years, had an availability of 80% (today it's even higher). The steam locomotive's availability hovered around 50-65% at best. Almost half its life was spent being tweaked and tightened up in the backshop. Out on the road, steam had an ugly habit of hammering the rail every time the piston and main rods came down. "Dynamic augment" was never fully overcome during the steam era. With its large driving wheel base, the steam locomotive always "hunted" going down the track, putting forces on the sides of the rail, both of which might explain why CWR didn't become popular until after steam was retired.

On BSF today, the average road diesel runs about 90,000 miles per year, considerably less than a Northern in 1950. In terms of actual "use" as opposed to availability, that represents a running time of approximately 51% of the total hours in a year. The typical Northern ran about 76% of the total time per year.

The problem I have with these "availability" statistics is that they don't match with the reality of real world numbers.

Regarding effect on track. The low center of gravity of a diesel was judged to be harder on the track. In dollars, track cost more to maintain to the same standard by a small amount after dieselization than it did before. That simply does not support an argument that Steam was "harder" on the rail, or if it was, it was inconsequential in the real world of dollars.

During dieselization, overall speed limits were reduced on equivalent track from the standards prevalent during the steam era. Why would that happen if Diesels were easier on the track structure than Steam?

While I am always impressed by the strength of theoretical arguments and belief systems, when they cannot be demonstrated by reference to actual operating results, I think skepticism is appropriate.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[MichaelSol]

"A modern coal-and-water station can load a tender with 24 tons of coal and 15,000 gallons of water in as little as four minutes. Many tenders are large enough to carry sufficient coal (or oil) and water to enable the engine to run for hundreds of miles without replenishing the supply." American Association of Railroads, 1942

Given that the 500 mile inspection rule is still in place, a four minute interlude to load coal and water is not the enormous obstacle that hindsight has now placed on the process.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Just a note-some steam took on water on the fly.It was called a track pan. It was a water trough between the rails.It was pretty spectacular-to see that all that weight and power slam thru a lowered scoop on impact when it hit the water.

1. The pan had to be mounted on dead level track
2. Straight or very slight curve was preferred
3. Pans had to be heated in winter (think of a 1 mile long wading pool)
4. The windows and doors in the first couple coaches of passenger trains had to be closed during the pickup
5. The area around the track had to be paved (erosion from the spray)
6. If they dropped the scoop too soon or raised it too late...........

[wallyworld]

Just a note-some steam took on water on the fly.It was called a track pan. It was a water trough between the rails.It was pretty spectacular-to see that all that weight and power slam thru a lowered scoop on impact when it hit the water.

[oldyardgoat]

Re: Mr. Sol's questions and Dave's comments.
Cheyenne, Wyo. makes for a good case in point. In 1950, three years before Union Pacific committed to the diesel, well over half the population worked for the railroad. Today, with only half again the population, less than twenty percent work for the railroad, if that much. Railroads reduced their shop forces by 70-80% from dieselization, and some shop towns lost their shops altogether. Put another way, it took Steve Lee's crew, about a dozen dedicated men, almost six years to give 844 a mjor overhaul after the tube failure in Sacramento in 1999. Back in the day, the backshop forces could run an 800 engine through the same overhaul within a 30-day schedule.
What did it for the diesel was availability. The diesel, even in its formative years, had an availability of 80% (today it's even higher). The steam locomotive's availability hovered around 50-65% at best. Almost half its life was spent being tweaked and tightened up in the backshop. Out on the road, steam had an ugly habit of hammering the rail every time the piston and main rods came down. "Dynamic augment" was never fully overcome during the steam era. With its large driving wheel base, the steam locomotive always "hunted" going down the track, putting forces on the sides of the rail, both of which might explain why CWR didn't become popular until after steam was retired. Replacing 39 or 78-foot sections of bolted rail was a lot easier and less expensive than replacing a section of CWR would have been at that time. And, like a cement mixer truck, steam was very top heavy, thus more prone to rollovers from excessive speed on curves. And in today's world, don't even think about A/C, or other niceties.
I'm just thankful, however, that I got to see--experience--the power and mystery of steam before it was vanquished. Steam had life, and I too, mourned its passing for many years. So, in spite of your current/recent hierarchy, thank you UP, the sound of 844's and 3985's steamboat whistles echoing off the Vedawoo Rocks still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end!

[PBenham]

Another point to consider, in 1935, Baldwin had not fully used the newer parts of the Eddystone facility, most of which at that time, was devoted to steam production. Capital was scarce and Baldwin failed to get a suitable return on its investment that led to their bankruptcy, when they could not keep up on the debt the facility imposed upon them. It wasn't until WWII, in 1940 that Eddystone really began to see anything close to full utilization. Then it only lasted six years, including post war steam(and some diesel) construction for war ravaged lines in the conflict's battle zones. Diesel work was thus stunted there, because of internal attitudes, but also a shortage of developmental capital. This also hampered ALCO and, more so than Baldwin, Lima, which also did not have adequate capital for diesel development.

[Anonymous]

One of the concerns with the water stops was not just the impact on fuel consumption, but also on schedules, payroll, and available utilization of resources (i.e. keeping the mainline clear).

Of course, that last item could be addressed by having a siding available for watering stops, but again, at what cost?

And how does one keep a schedule when, instead of screaming along at 75 MPH, one's tenders are sitting under the water tower?

I would also be interested in knowing just how complex a beast the ACE3000 is, how much of that is workable vs. pipe dreams, and even with all the improvements, will it offset some of those additional costs?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by James_the_Mad

One question: Are steam locomotives harder on the physical plant - that is, the track, switches, etc?

I seem to recall one poster speaking of the pounding the rails receive from steam engines. I would also be concerned about the affect of 4 or 5 drivers, with no flexibility, on a curve. All this compared with the much shorter trucks on 6-axle locomotives. Three fixed axles on an SD9 or SD40-2 have a much shorter wheelbase than even aPacific, and they're fairly short compared to a Mikado or one of SP's big Cab Forwards.

Also, what was the overhead of maintaining watering towers - not just the cost of the water itself, but the building and maintenance of the towers, taxes, the extra watering stops, etc? Yes, maybe that could be offset with larger tenders or separate water tenders, but what impact does adding a tender (or for long-range operation, multiple tenders) do to the equation?

I suspect there is more to the equation than simply fuel and maintenance costs of the locomotives themselves.

A steam locomotive will "pound the rails" because of the weight of the side rods and the counter weight on the driver. This is also made worse by coupling more drivers to the same cylinder, the rods have to be heavier to transmit more power over a wider area (to more wheels) with a correspondingly heavier counterweight. Also, long wheelbase locomotives do require wider curves, only a limited amount of flexibility was built into the drive system. The ACE3000 design was essentially two-four wheel driver sets, minimizing most of these problems.

As you point out, stopping and starting more often, as for water stops, will consume more fuel, just like your car does in stop and go driving as compared to highway driving. Larger tenders or aux tenders will reduce the amount of freight the loco can pull, as its own fuel and water supply will now be some of that "freight." Again the design of the ACE3000 was to have a condensing tender to recover the steam and reuse it somehow, reducing the need for water stops.

[Anonymous]

One question: Are steam locomotives harder on the physical plant - that is, the track, switches, etc?

I seem to recall one poster speaking of the pounding the rails receive from steam engines. I would also be concerned about the affect of 4 or 5 drivers, with no flexibility, on a curve. All this compared with the much shorter trucks on 6-axle locomotives. Three fixed axles on an SD9 or SD40-2 have a much shorter wheelbase than even aPacific, and they're fairly short compared to a Mikado or one of SP's big Cab Forwards.

Also, what was the overhead of maintaining watering towers - not just the cost of the water itself, but the building and maintenance of the towers, taxes, the extra watering stops, etc? Yes, maybe that could be offset with larger tenders or separate water tenders, but what impact does adding a tender (or for long-range operation, multiple tenders) do to the equation?

I suspect there is more to the equation than simply fuel and maintenance costs of the locomotives themselves.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

Relief valves do, in fact, prevent boiler explosions.

Statistically, head on collisions were more likely than boiler explosions.

Best regards, Michael Sol

As I stated above, not with a crown sheet failure, which would be more possible if nobody is in the cab to monitor the boiler water level, especially with the technology of the 50's.

And MU systems for steam locomotives have never gone beyond the drawing board. There has yet to be a prototype put into use and proven to work.

[MichaelSol]

Relief valves do, in fact, prevent boiler explosions.

Statistically, head on collisions were more likely than boiler explosions.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl
Electric locomotives are provided with fuses and or circuit breakers to protect the equipment there is very little you can do to detect imminent boiler exposions due to an exposed crown sheet .

Well, even kitchen pressure cookers had a relief valve.


Best regards, Michael Sol

So are steam locomotives. But they don't stop boiler explosions and have little or nothing to do to assist the claim that they could be MU'd with the technology of the time.

Especially with an exposed crown sheet.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl
Electric locomotives are provided with fuses and or circuit breakers to protect the equipment there is very little you can do to detect imminent boiler exposions due to an exposed crown sheet .

Well, even kitchen pressure cookers had a relief valve.

I've been on the Joes. If I wasn't in the business car, I was in the locomotive. I've operated the Wylie Throttle. I've gone back and watched the drawbar. The Joes always pulled the diesels. Yes, sometimes the fireman had to go back and see what was going on with the diesels. No, there was not perfect feedback, even with diesel-electric locomotives.

The system worked remarkably well.

www.dlm-ag.ch/weltkongress/mullaney.pdf

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Randy Stahl]

I'm more than willing to kick this around a bit . Since Frank Sprague proved on the Chicago Elevated that multiple unit control was possible on trains 6-8 cars long there was enough evidence to support Mr. Wylie , this was proven in 1901 at the trials in Chicago.
I'm thinking about the clever designers at Baldwin, ALCo , Lima that could have sold MU steam locomotives . If one builder was able to do it he would have cornered the market , there was some competition between builders !!
I don't think that it would have been difficult to MU the throttle at all , in fact that would have been the simple part, Baldwin used a linear type control on their diesel locomotives that controlled the engine using air pressure. In that case multiple unit operation of more than 4-5 was very unreliable due to pressure losses in the trainline.
The biggest obsticle to overcome would have been wheel slip detection and correction.
I realize that the GE little joe's were known to slip however they did possess a fundemental relay system that shunted the load and turned on a light.
On a steam locomotive you do not have the voltage and current feedbacks to use to detect slipping.
Electric locomotives are provided with fuses and or circuit breakers to protect the equipment there is very little you can do to detect imminent boiler exposions due to an exposed crown sheet .
You would be hard pressed today to build a MU reciprocating steam locomotive even with modern electronics . Modern electronics are still not perfect, with a 300 psi boiler, I insist on perfection.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Randy Stahl

Multiple unit was invented by Frank Sprague in 1901 , regardless of the fact MU technology did exist for many years of the steam era , I would not want the challenge of applying it to a steam locomotive. I would think that the possibility has been thought about and assessed to be impossible.
Randy

Well, it is true that Reinier Bueewkes did not think it feasible with electrics, then finally grudgingly conceded it with three unit sets in the 1930s, but refused to believe it could be done with four unit sets or more. L. W. Wylie, with the same 1914 technology, not only did it with four unit sets, but extended the concept to mu-ing between electric sets and diesel sets of four, six, eight, whatever units.

But, it couldn't be done.

Nothing changed regarding fundamentals of electricity between 1914 and 1950.

Only the belief systems.

[Randy Stahl]

Multiple unit was invented by Frank Sprague in 1901 , regardless of the fact MU technology did exist for many years of the steam era , I would not want the challenge of applying it to a steam locomotive. I would think that the possibility has been thought about and assessed to be impossible.
Randy

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
With the technology available in the late 40's or 50's? Those vacuum tubes would have a short life in the hot cab. And solid state in those days? Nonexistant, and when it did show up, VERY temperature sensitive.

Not likely. You're citing technology that was on the drawing board when they were playing with the ACE3000. Just a FEW years after the change over.

Same technology that allowed Diesel "mu-ing".

The 1955 "Diesel Synchronous Controller" I have sitting here in front of me has no vacuum tubes.

Unfortunately, stokers don't lay an even layer of coal on the grates. Nor were low water alarms of the day reliable enough to leave the cab of a steam locomotive unattended. That Diesel Syncronous Controller would have a lot of items to address on a steam locomotive that it doesn't on a diesel.

What other "electronically controlled" system were you refering to for the stoker or oil firing control?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
With the technology available in the late 40's or 50's? Those vacuum tubes would have a short life in the hot cab. And solid state in those days? Nonexistant, and when it did show up, VERY temperature sensitive.

Not likely. You're citing technology that was on the drawing board when they were playing with the ACE3000. Just a FEW years after the change over.

Same technology that allowed Diesel "mu-ing".

The 1955 "Diesel Synchronous Controller" I have sitting here in front of me has no vacuum tubes, nor does it have anything "solid state." It simply makes an equivalent electrical connection that corresponds with the electrical connection sequence that a trailing diesel locomotive made for each power or notch setting on its throttle.

Folks, you don't need to invent a new requirement for what worked perfectly well for Diesel Mu-ing at the time.

[Randy Stahl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[With the technology available in the late 40's or 50's? Those vacuum tubes would have a short life in the hot cab. And solid state in those days? Nonexistant, and when it did show up, VERY temperature sensitive.

Ironically, it was the same technology that allowed Diesels to be "mu'ed".

No solid state anything in older diesels, including the voltage regulators

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
[With the technology available in the late 40's or 50's? Those vacuum tubes would have a short life in the hot cab. And solid state in those days? Nonexistant, and when it did show up, VERY temperature sensitive.

Ironically, it was the same technology that allowed Diesels to be "mu'ed".

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Wardale goes beyond simply talking or theorizing about steam motive power, He is actually developing a design in real world terms Thats what I meant by putting his money where is mouth is..He seems to be doing quite well.I wish him well and should he solicits a donation-I will contribute. Thats what i can do in regard to following his example.I hope others do so as well.

Unless he builds a prototype, he's gone no further than Ross Rowland did with the ACE3000.

http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.html

[wallyworld]

Wardale goes beyond simply talking or theorizing about steam motive power, He is actually developing a design in real world terms Thats what I meant by putting his money where is mouth is..He seems to be doing quite well.I wish him well and should he solicits a donation-I will contribute. Thats what i can do in regard to following his example.I hope others do so as well.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Safety Valve

I disagree with the assessment that wartime traffic beat steam to death.

I bet the Nation's War Traffic must have seen the highest tonnage ever asked of railroading, steam or desiel.

I think you might have oversimplified the statement SV. The entire physical plant, as well as the rolling stock of the railroads was hauling the highest tonnage ever asked of railroading. Couple that to the fact that strategic materials were rationed during WWII, steel included, which curtailed the railroad's ability to maintain the property and stock in the best condition. The current buzz-phrase for this is "deferred maintenance." This is the source of the "beat to death" statement so often attached to this period in history. The difference then was that maintenance was deferred because of the controlled availability of the materials by the War Production Board, not like more recent incidents that were related to lack of money to buy the materials or hire the labor.

This is where ignoring the history yields some skewed figures for maintenance costs in the 50's for the railroads. Of course the maintenance figures per year are higher when you can actually DO the maintenance you've been putting off for years. They had the money during WWII but couldn't buy the locomotives, cars, or track components needed.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Heres someone who is putting money where is mouth is and is bringing steam forward into the 21st Century. This is the 5AT Project-David Wardale is one bright guy with a track record of success. Projected 50,000 miles between maintenance overhauls. Great stats and comparisons. Wheres Ross Rowland when we need him?
http://www.5at.co.uk/

I don't know about the "putting money where his mouth is" or not, but it doesn't seem to have progressed any further than the ACE3000 project. Both seem to have been stuck at the drawing board stage.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

Well, I guess I do want to beat that dead horse!

I really think it was the maintenance costs.

You have the 1) Diesel can be MU'd, steam cannot, 2) Diesel uses a lot less fuel, 3) steam pounded the rails, 4) steam had the water supply problem, 5) Diesel took less maintenance, 6) railroads beat their steam locomotives to death in WW-II traffic surge and were ready to replace the whole fleet.

All of these points had answers or lack of answers in some degree. But I still think that steam is maintenance-expensive -- the prep to get a steam loco going from cold start, the handling and facilities for water-coal-ash, the boiler inspections and safe operation of a boiler (related to a vapor cycle and working fluid phase change -- gas cycles can blow a cylinder or a turbo and it is usual not a fatal accident), the tradeoff between putting money into water treatment or cleaning out the boiler, cleaning the flues, replacing flues.

Paul touches on a point that I've experienced personally. Starting a diesel locomotive isn't much different than starting your car. I've done it. I've also assisted in starting a steam locomotive from cold. I say "assisted" because it takes longer than a full shift to do it. And the steam needs to be started this way after the monthly boiler washes as we do them at Steamtown. They were probably more frequent in the days of steam being THE power for the railroads.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic
You have the 1) Diesel can be MU'd, steam cannot, 2) Diesel uses a lot less fuel, 3) steam pounded the rails, 4) steam had the water supply problem, 5) Diesel took less maintenance, 6) railroads beat their steam locomotives to death in WW-II traffic surge and were ready to replace the whole fleet.

I almost never see numbers in support of contentions like this, even though railroads were and are a data rich source of detailed information.

A couple of points.

1) Steam can be mu'd. Coal or fuel oil, an automatic stoker or feed is electronically controlled.

Best regards, Michael Sol

With the technology available in the late 40's or 50's? Those vacuum tubes would have a short life in the hot cab. And solid state in those days? Nonexistant, and when it did show up, VERY temperature sensitive.

Not likely. You're citing technology that was on the drawing board when they were playing with the ACE3000. Just a FEW years after the change over.

[Randy Stahl]

It is an interesting modern day issue , certainly worth some thought considering the rising prices of parts and fuel . I have been working some numbers to convince myself that a conversion to "old steam" or new tech steam to be a viable alternative to todays motive power options .
Interesting thing , a rebuilt steam engine using the old foundation , new boiler will cost about the same as a rebuilt SD-40-3.
Randy

[MichaelSol]

Hi Randy, I'm still working on the Shops photos to get them uploaded.

Of course, man-hours doesn't say anything about parts costs, and so they are only a part of a substantially larger picture.

However, there is also a bit of a sleight of hand in the numbers. Firstly, the reference to "34 locomotives" sounds like a specific subfleet. These are compared to a "medium sized steam locomotive" which sounds to me like someone is referencing a general fleet average.

I will agree that a brand new locomotive will require considerably less maintenance than a five, eight, 10, or 20 year old locomotive, let alone a 27 year old locomotive.

Now, man-hours doesn't tell me much, especially when the numbers are incomplete, but we do have final numbers for all costs associated with road locomotive maintenance. Here are the inflation adjusted numbers per 1000 ton miles of freight hauled for locomotive maintenance on a sample Class 1 railroad.

1945... 62 cents, fleet average age 23 years (steam, 27 years)
1957 ... 62 cents, fleet average age 5 years, all diesel.

Dieselization couldn't budge the cost of maintenance.

And there is a problem even with these numbers, they are not age adjusted. These figures don't tell the whole story in that if the figures are age adjusted, Dieselization maintenance costs were substantially worse than with a comparable steam fleet.

For example, if the average steam engine and the average diesel electric locomotive is five years old -- that is comparable age -- then the numbers would look something like this (I don't have my hp maintenance cost curves here, they are at the office, so I am ballparking these as best I can recollect):

Steam, Diesel
1957: 48 cents, 62 cents

If the fleet average is 27 years, the numbers would look like this:
Steam, Diesel
1957: 64 cents, $1.57.

The statistical fallacy, as pointed out in "Muzzle Not the Ox", has been to compare the operating results of brand new motive power -- a specific, specialized subset -- with general operating results of a fleet average. That never proved anything about Steam vs. Diesel, what it did do was conclusively and triumphantly show a brand new machine required less maintenance than a considerably older machine.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[wallyworld]

Heres someone who is putting money where is mouth is and is bringing steam forward into the 21st Century. This is the 5AT Project-David Wardale is one bright guy with a track record of success. Projected 50,000 miles between maintenance overhauls. Great stats and comparisons. Wheres Ross Rowland when we need him?
http://www.5at.co.uk/

[Randy Stahl]

261.16. This is our number for annual man hours per locomotive only considering SCHEDULED maintenence. Triannual air averaged is out over three years . We have 34 locomotives , that brings a total of 8879.44 total annual manhours for scheduled work . On our railroad we would require an additional 15 steam locomotives to do the same work AND reopen facitys to care for them . The manhours on a midsized steam locomotive , SCHEDULED maintenence would be 422.19 man hours to do the maintenence including BI annual airbrake as all but 26L airbrake is on a 24 month schedule . Of course a locomotive could be converted to 26L and that will bring the total down to 366 manhours on scheduled tasks. The addition of 15 locomotives would bring our annual department operating budget to 17,934 annual manhours.
Remember this ONLY represents 92 day periodic maintenence , not the daily upkeep of the locomotive.
You would need attendents on a daily basis at or near the location where the engine will work , locomotive engineers can do daily inspections on a modern locomotive but would be hard pressed to care for a steam locomotive.
If you find an error in my numbers, I am willing to listen , I would like nothing better than to replace my fleet !
Randy

[Anonymous]

Wallyworld says:

QUOTE: I talked to some former steam men-they didnt miss leaning out a cab looking down a boiler barrel peering into the darkness looking for a signal or a hoop or the heat of a firebox in summer-but when I heard them talk, the way they talked and sometimes they said it was like nothing else and in their own way, it was like they lost a freind when the diesels came.

Funny, but I've heard just the opposite. During the last days of steam on the SP, dispatchers had a heck of a time finding crews for trains running steam power. A lot of the guys would ask what the power was, and when they heard it was steam, they'd beg off.

BTW, this comes from someone that actually liked steam. But most of his co-workers didn't.

There may have been some true craftsmen out there, but if so, I think they were in the minority. Most of the guys who reminisce about steam are the same kind of guys that will say "There hasn't been any good music since . . ."(which is usually something significant in the speaker's life, like when he graduated from college, or got married, or something else that doesn't have anything at all to do with music). When they talk about the "good old days," they're saying more about who they were in that day than about what those days were like.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic
You have the 1) Diesel can be MU'd, steam cannot, 2) Diesel uses a lot less fuel, 3) steam pounded the rails, 4) steam had the water supply problem, 5) Diesel took less maintenance, 6) railroads beat their steam locomotives to death in WW-II traffic surge and were ready to replace the whole fleet.

I almost never see numbers in support of contentions like this, even though railroads were and are a data rich source of detailed information.

A couple of points.

1) Steam can be mu'd. Coal or fuel oil, an automatic stoker or feed is electronically controlled.

2) Well, diesel certainly uses a more expensive fuel.

3) Egineers of the era found that diesel electrics were harder on the physical plant than steam, not enough to be statistically significant in terms of maintenance requirements but that offers the converse: maintenance requirements did not go down after dieselization; rather, the ICC imposed lower speed limits on comparable track as dieselization proceeded.

4) "Steam had the water supply problem." This is one that the younger railfans almost always fasten on: railroads could save on all that water. The argument always intrigued me. Of all the things killing the railroads at the time, I have never found in the historical record that the high cost of water was one of them. But this argument is almost always cited in support of dieselization.

This is one of those statistical allegations that 1) never seems to have a statistic to back it up (that is, it is taken as a transcendent truth), and 2) reference is never, and I mean never, made to the "other" companion fluid statistic -- lubricants.

Here is what a sample Class I railroad looked like for road train service, which was fully dieselized by 1957:

.. Year ... Water $... Lubricant $ .. Total

1945..... $729,000...$392,000 ....$1.1 million
1957..... $136,000...$1,042,000..$1.2 million

The argument, in it's fullest light, suggests that water from a well trackside at Mobridge was a terrible burden on the Company, but that expensive lubricants shipped in from East Texas or Saudi Arabia represented a welcome relief from that onerous servitude.

5) "Diesel took less maintenance." I did my first hp maintenance curve thirty two years ago this summer. I was completely surprised by what I saw. The cost per diesel-electric horsepower was substantially higher over the economic service life of the machine than for either straight electric or steam. The Diesel-electric cost about three times as much per hp as the straight electric, and about twice as much as equivalent steam.

And, there had not been a substantive change from the Baldwin figures of 1935, from H.F. Brown's study of 1960, and to our data through 1973.

To me, that signified that the maintenance cost is inherent in the design and could not be remedied by further application.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

I disagree with the assessment that wartime traffic beat steam to death.

I bet the Nation's War Traffic must have seen the highest tonnage ever asked of railroading, steam or desiel.

[wallyworld]

I dont consider the death knell of steam to be an either or proposition with maintenance on one side and labor on the other. There were many facets of the equation. One was the "fordization," of an automotive maker crossing into railroad manufacturing territory bringing with them-one size fits all-less customization-an early form of modular constuction-off the shelf parts-fewer specialty suppliers et al. Another was less pounding of reciprocal thrust on track- elimination of superelevation-fewer servicing facilities to maintain and crew. We went from the Age of Steam to The Age of Oil to the Synthetic Age. I think we lost more than we gained.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Well, I guess I do want to beat that dead horse!

I really think it was the maintenance costs.

You have the 1) Diesel can be MU'd, steam cannot, 2) Diesel uses a lot less fuel, 3) steam pounded the rails, 4) steam had the water supply problem, 5) Diesel took less maintenance, 6) railroads beat their steam locomotives to death in WW-II traffic surge and were ready to replace the whole fleet.

All of these points had answers or lack of answers in some degree. But I still think that steam is maintenance-expensive -- the prep to get a steam loco going from cold start, the handling and facilities for water-coal-ash, the boiler inspections and safe operation of a boiler (related to a vapor cycle and working fluid phase change -- gas cycles can blow a cylinder or a turbo and it is usual not a fatal accident), the tradeoff between putting money into water treatment or cleaning out the boiler, cleaning the flues, replacing flues.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wallyworld

Labor intensive in terms of manpower.

The five man crew requirement made railroading labor intensive, not steam.

Regarding, maintenance claims, the average steam engine was 27 years old in 1948. I wonder how much labor would be involved if the average diesel electric was 27 years old. I would ask it as a question, but notwithstanding strong claims made for dieselization, it is very hard to get an informed answer.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[wallyworld]

Labor intensive in terms of manpower. However, there is a point beyond economics. Running steam was when an engineer's relationship counted with his mechcanical charge in the sense it was more art than science. A man with good ears could hook up and cutoff just by the sound and pitch of the exhaust.You could call it craftsmanship. You look at those long gone faces in Winston's Links books and you can see assurance and pride.Teamwork between the fireman and engineer had to be coordinated in sync. A good team would appear to be psychic. Not to take away from present day crews but men mattered more than technology- no radios-no wheelslip control-no dynamic brakes- no hard drives-no software-rarely had in cab signals-add it up.I am not a Luddite but we lost something more valuable than we gained- a lost world of interface with what we create. I talked to some former steam men-they didnt miss leaning out a cab looking down a boiler barrel peering into the darkness looking for a signal or a hoop or the heat of a firebox in summer-but when I heard them talk, the way they talked and sometimes they said it was like nothing else and in their own way, it was like they lost a freind when the diesels came.My great uncle Jack fired for the SP-left the road in mid age to become a wealthy businessman in Burbank-but when he talked about steam-he got a far way look in his eyes-thats all he would talk about much to the consternation of my grandfather but to my young delight. He never talked about his business acumen-wore fine suits-it seemed he was prouder of being a good fireman than a self made success. I made a simple mistake only once. I asked him about diesels. He got red faced and huffed and puffed and finally spitted out his reply, "Streetcars!" I never asked again.

The Office
http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/rolling-stock/Steam/Steam-backhead-Hudson-5-38-RME.jpg
Fastest Steam Locomotives
http://www.germansteam.co.uk/FastestLoco/fastestloco.html#18

[timz]

Anyone that wants to Google that Baldwin VP-- don't forget to check the spelling first.

[Paul Milenkovic]

The Baldwin fellow makes some interesting arguments. Electrification didn't make inroads against steam, Diesel-electric is like electrification, ergo, Diesel won't make inroads against steam. History showed that while Europe went electric, Diesel actually rolled back what little electrification there was in the U.S. (including Conrail Dieselizaing freight ops on the NEC and Amtrak unable to sell the E60s for freight service). He also argues for favorable maintenance costs for steam -- my understanding is that fuel costs (thermal efficiency and all of that) was not the big issue with steam that people think it to be, but maintenance was a biggy. The railroads learned how to maintain Diesels economically while steam had its boiler inspections and flue cleanings and boiler washings and so on to deal with.

The basic thermodynamics we are talking about in steam vs Diesel for steam vs anything else is a two-phase working fluid thermodynamic cycle vs a single-phase fluid cycle. La locomotif a vapeur (excuse my French spelling) implies a liquid phase and a vapor phase to make it go. The big advantage of such vapor cycle engines is the compression work is done on the liquid phase (the injector) and is energy-wise for free. The big advantage of gas cycle engines (Diesel, gasoline engine, gas turbine) is that you do away with that troublesome liquid phase (foaming, boiler scaling, boiler explosions) but then you have to provide a tremendous amount of mechanical work for the gas compressor -- if you go positive displacement (pistons) you have to deal with wear and power assembly changeouts, if you go turbines, you have to cycle a lot of the power taken from your turbine back into the compressor, and you can only do that efficiently over narrow speed and power ranges.

People talk about the 4-unit, 5400 HP FT demonstrator as the death knell of steam. With 16 powered axles it could out pull any single steam engine, of which the max powered axles was 10 if you consider the 2-10-10-2 Mallet. At 5400 HP, it was in the league of the highest HP steam engines. But you had to consider that the 4-unit FT consist had 64 cylinders, 4 generators, and 16 traction motors - quite the complex rig -- and that you had to observe minimum speeds and short-term ratings. A steam locomotive might slip, but it was never going to burn anything out from lugging.

Steam perhaps departed US railroading before its time, but the river towboats are all Diesel (Alco's and EMD's), and steam has been pushed out of ocean going ships by these giant marine low-speed Diesels or by gas turbines for Navy ships. The electric power utility industry is a coal-burning steam holdout, but there is talk of onsite coal gasification feeding aviation-derived gas turbines (still use steam for the "bottoming cycle" off the gas turbine exhaust heat).

Air conditioning is a holdout of vapor cycle -- a couple of years ago I sunk 900 bucks into my household central air on leak maintenance (related to closed cycle, vapor cycle, and the environmental concerns of refrigerant). It took two service calls to correct the leaks which included two full drills of refrigerant drainage, recovery, and refill, and they charged me an arm an a leg to replace the filter dryer (kind of like the oil filter in the refrigerant line) and add a liquid sight glass (prophylatic measures I had asked for) while they had the line drained along with a replacement solenoid (they had suggested was the source of the leak).

What I am saying is that vapor cycle has certain mechanical advantages but it incurs a lot of maintenance headaches, whether it is a steam locomotive of a home airconditioner. And now they are pushing ground-source heat pumps -- the same sort of maintenance headaches of central air to be enjoyed in the dead of winter when you need heat. Just as the steam locomotive was replaced by gas-cycle power, I would gladly go with gas cycle A/C for home and car.

[TomDiehl]

The speed had little to do with the survival (or lack thereof) of the passenger trains as we heard or read about them in the pre-WW2 era. Several factors, all leading to one item, is basically what killed the majority of the passenger trains. The item: the privately owned automobile. After WW2, many GI's came home from the war, and the US had a huge wartime industrial base that suddenly had nothing to build for. The changeover to a peacetime industry brought us the heavy equipment, to build the roads, the drilling and refining equipment to bring us cheap fuel, and the industry to build the automobile itself. Plus all the ex-GI's are now employed in these industries, making these things, and making enough money to afford them.

The main factor after this that hurt the passenger trains is that they ran on schedule in given corridors. It stood little or no chance against the convenience of walking out to your driveway, starting your car, and going where you wanted to go, when you wanted to go there.

[wallyworld]

I think the evolution of rail passenger travel entered an ice age of sorts, where it was halted, in other words, with the advent of the public interstate highway system as well as
the growth of airline carriers. Steam certainly was capable of pulling heavy consists at what then were considered high speeds-but then so were the diesels.

[Anonymous]

Isn't it possible that the rail passenger concept did not survive because the travel speeds did not keep up with societal evolution? Remember, it was back in the 1930's when talk of 100 mph travel was commonplace, while most autos and trucks were still traveling 40 to 50 mph. Railroads had the speed advantage, but lost it when dieselization took hold. Lugging power isn't a necessity for passenger travel.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Not implying that diesel wouldn't have won the day. The speech is from 1935 with improvements in diesels to come also. What's interesting to me is this is pretty much rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Passenger trains didn't survive the bottom line, and a whole lot of freight, too. The climate was not favorable to railroads.

As Ed has commented before, as long as there's heavy and bulky and dangerous stuff that needs to be moved, the railroad will hang in there. And lines west of the Mississippi have the advantage of great distances.

Blinkerd's speech must be considered in its context, that of the very time and existing technology, and industry climate in 1935. He was definitely there to sell the steam technology that was Baldwin's bread and butter, but I think he was also testing the water to see what the reaction was and what was being considered in the area of diesel locomotives, but in the light of History, it is a tremendously interesting insight by an industry insider.
I have always understood that the Passenger train in any format was as Tom stated doomed by Standards of Railroad Accounting. It was the practice of charging the infrastructure costs to the Passenger Departments, and running the Freight Ops as simply a bonus activity between the passenger trains, where the Freight activities bore little of the cost of infrastructure, that doomed the passenger train to be cut by the fact it was never going to be a profit center, only a burden on the bottom line, thus a prime location to cut costs and expenses.
iF anybody can correct this impression, I would apperciate it, if it is wrong or mistaken.
Thanks, Sam

[wallyworld]

In the earlier days diesel traction motors had a tendency to fry when lugging, which, in some cases,prolonged to some degree, the coal roads staying with steam especially when your dragging a long, heavy string of coal through a loader. It depends on the time frame thats being referred to.Generally, and its tough to generalize- steam locos were purpose built, which was considered a drawback when there were a greater variety of consists and consequently- speeds aka passenger runs. After these went south, that was a moot point. In late era steam, in many cases they had greater efficency at higher speeds. The stillborn, overly far reaching ACE concept had alot if not most of the issues with steam, as it existed in the past, addressed, but only in theory. The short answer to your question to the best of my knowledge is no, probably not. The fuel efficency and enviromental impact of steam has vastly improved due to Porta, Wardale, etc but that is another story entirely.

[edblysard]

Pretty obvious they don't want the time sensitive freight, other than the container, and havent in a long time.

Ed

[Anonymous]

It is interesting that the *arguments* in favor of diesel over steam were/are not necessarily germaine to one over the other. Bi-directionality, MU-ability, single person control, standardization of parts, et al, all were as conceivably possible for steam as well as diesel. The real comparisons lay in relative operational performances, and if I remember correctly from the Steam vs Diesel thread, the advantage of diesel over steam was in low speed lugging power, while the advantage of steam over diesel was in higher speed horsepower.

So, is there a strong correlation between the current modus operandi of 25 mph averaga velocity of today's railroads and the changeover to diesel and it's superior lugging power? If steam had progressed past the idiosyncratic characterizations of *lacking* multiple unit operation, *needing* water towers, coaling towers, et al, would the railroad industry today have a higher average velocity? Would the shorter, faster aka D&RGW model be predominant over the longer slower model?

Would railroads own a greater market share of the time sensitive freight market from the truckers?

[wallyworld]

Safety Valve- A suggestion-if you are into this topic one of the most interesting railroading books Ive ever read as Black Gold-Black Diamonds. The description below is from the Colorado Railroad Museum on line store. They have it in stock and its a good cause for a donation.


BLACK GOLD - BLACK DIAMONDS: The Pennsylvania Railroad and Dieselization
By Eric Hirsimaki. The story of steam, electric and diesel-electric locomotives on the Pennsylvania Railroad from 1915 to mid-1947. Many new facts are brought forth, such as the M1's 3-cylinder 2-10-2 that became the famous I1's 2-10-0; proposed steam, diesel, electric and turbine locomotives; why there were only 139 GG1s; PRR "Big Boys", and other such interesting topics as its McKeen car, gasoline-electric cars, street switchers and other odd pieces of motive power.

[Anonymous]

The bottom line of money I think is a monster for the railroads. What happens when these units get worn out and the cycle repeats?

I can understand and relate to the older a engine gets the worse the shop down time and expenses accumulate. I take a little bit of experience with a older truck that was constantly on the verge of breaking down and cutting into my ability to make a mile loaded because it was always in the shop.

I would pester the office saying why not lease a newer truck or assign a fre***ruck to the job so I can stay the heck out of that shop and actually run loads. Thier response?

"Too expensive" My answer? I moved to another employer who had newer trucks and not as much lost downtime. Now I wonder what is more expensive? Fixing old stuff or replacing it all.

During this person's speech he basically offered to take orders on that nice little switcher engine for half off retail price. Does anyone know if the audience did take him up on the offer? Or perhaps special ordered bigger engines for steam work on the main?

What else do we know about this part of the early 1900's when desiels was all fancy and new-fangled?

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dave e

Costs eliminated with the end of steam:
water tanks, track pans
coal handling, dozens of cars a day for a major terminal
boiler washouts every month
blacksmiths, boilermakers, machinists
ash handling and disposal
standby costs, hostlers & firemen to keep steam up when not on the road
elimination of intermediate engine terminals (Crestline OH on PRR)

How much do you think the savings amounted to in numbers, dollars, perhaps percentages?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Costs eliminated with the end of steam:
water tanks, track pans
coal handling, dozens of cars a day for a major terminal
boiler washouts every month
blacksmiths, boilermakers, machinists
ash handling and disposal
standby costs, hostlers & firemen to keep steam up when not on the road
elimination of intermediate engine terminals (Crestline OH on PRR)

Despite all that, I mourned steam for years.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68
One number that definitely fell to the Diesel's favor was the drastic reduction of labor necessary.

What are the numbers?

Best regards, Michael Sol

[Anonymous]

Not implying that diesel wouldn't have won the day. The speech is from 1935 with improvements in diesels to come also. What's interesting to me is this is pretty much rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Passenger trains didn't survive the bottom line, and a whole lot of freight, too. The climate was not favorable to railroads.

As Ed has commented before, as long as there's heavy and bulky and dangerous stuff that needs to be moved, the railroad will hang in there. And lines west of the Mississippi have the advantage of great distances.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lonewoof

The railroads all got sold a bill of goods when they Dieselized?

Yes. And No. As Ed pointed out, MUing for Diesels may have been a ways out yet when Blinkerd gave his talk, but we still don't have it for steam. Granted, there is little reason given current technology, but you'd think some tinkerer would have at least played with the idea.

There was a significant period of transition between steam and Diesel. If the railroads wanted to figure out the fallacy of the Diesel promoters claims, they had plenty of time to do it. One number that definitely fell to the Diesel's favor was the drastic reduction of labor necessary. Once issues such as the cooling system previously mentioned were resolved, about the only thing keeping the fireman on locomotives was labor agreements. And while it can be argued that manpower is still necessary to maintain a Diesel locomotive, the amount is vastly less than is required for steam.

Blinkerd's own example of a steamer that did not require a fireman could have been a harbinger of things to come.

Had steam been able to successfully duplicate the factors that favored Diesels, it would likely still be around.

[edblysard]

And keep in mind no matter how eloquent the man was, his primary reason for his speech was to sell the steam locomotive, after all, his company was still focused on that as it's primary product.

Could steam have survived as the major motive power after the 1950's?
Most likely not, unless radical changes in it design allowed it to be MUed as easily as a diesel electric, and all of the motive power was standardized with interchangeable parts...steam locomotives still required "custom" or one off parts to be made for each locomotive.

Keep in mind the era this speech is made...although I have no doubts the concepts of MUed units, interchangeable parts and standard designs and controls were around, their introduction to the product was still years away and it was still in the best interest of Mr. Blinkard and his company to "sell" steam.

Did railroads throw away machines that still had a considerable service life left in them to "modernize" with diesels?
Sure, but all consumers do the same thing...anyone who buys a new car most likely isn’t buying it because their old car is really "broken" beyond repair...but because they want a new car, and rationalize reasons to purchase one.

Add in the fact that quite soon railroads grasped the concept that a diesel electric runs just as well no matter which way it faces, (steam really doesn’t) that parts could be mass produced and stocked on hand as opposed to made one at a time for each locomotive, and that even with the rise in fuel cost, the production and world wide use of petroleum products would continue to expand, so fuel cost percentage wise would remain about the same...then having a locomotive you could assign anywhere on your system, and crew with fewer employees, repair at almost any shop, with parts you buy and stock, instead of make...and you could add as many together (MU)as you needed for any particular assignment, then steam as the motive power of choice becomes a moot concept...no matter how you massage the numbers, it is flat out cheaper to run the diesel overall, and the bottom line is the god of all railroads.
Ed

[PBenham]

Two points, first Binkerd was speaking at a time when Steam was far and away the choice for all but those railroads that had the $ or, lack there of that made them take the risks early technology persented to the industry then ,as now.Then there were those that had to comply with unreasonable local smoke ordinances. Diesels were still very experimental, and not as reliable as an overall "group" as steam. Some diesels were quite good in 1938,(Alco high hoods) some weren't.(NH's temperamental "Comet".) Second, labor did not have any reason to fear dieselization, since the early yard units and passenger units had manual coolant temperature controls, meaning that a crew working on an E3 or DL109 had to include a fireman, who would go back and turn on/ off the units cooling fans, since thermostatically controlled cooling systems were very expensive then, and were so critical for the upcoming war effort, that civilian sales of such components, were out if the question until after VE day, and then, still restricted to crucial applications. EMD didn't offer automatic cooling fan control until 1948 (F3,BL2) as I understand it, and then, not on all models! (SW1, NW2, and E7! did not have this feature) Please some one, set the record straight on this. Alco had such controls on FA/B1s and PAs from the start, Baldwin left it up to the customer, until the AS16/416/616,RT624,S12, RF16 "line" in 1950. But there were earlier units with such controls, but at an extra cost to the buyers. Fairbanks-Morse had this feature from the end of WWII restrictions, and then offered a retrofit kit for owners of early H10-44s.

[lonewoof]

Isn't the gist of this speech the same thing Michael Sol has been saying? The railroads all got sold a bill of goods when they Dieselized?

[wallyworld]

Blinkerd was an iconoclast, so was Porta. I remember a regular feature of Trains was a column entitled "The Professional Iconoclast." I believe the author's name was John Kneiling (sp?). He advocated some radical theory of railroading called unit trains, trains that only carried one commodity. These iconoclasts might be wrong and they might be right, but they were never dull. They made me challenge my assumptions which always made things interesting.

[samfp1943]

This article" Muzzle not the Ox" ought to be required reading for railfans. It would certainly alter alot of perspectives and change some preconceived notions where steam vs. diesel is concerned..
http://yardlimit.railfan.net/baldwindiesels/ox/page11.html

Sam

[Anonymous]

A great speech filled with many lessons.

Qoute
"Most of the fleets of passenger locomotives in this country — largely Pacifies — were designed about midway in this process. They were supposed to be adequate for 10-car trains when the average weight per car was 65 or 70 tons. Today the average weight of these cars is around 85 tons. Instead of getting ten 70-ton cars, these locomotives are given eleven, twelve, thirteen or fourteen of these 85-ton cars. So instead of having 700 tons in dead weight back of the tender, these locomotives now have 1000, 1100, 1200 tons. " End Qoute

[samfp1943]

Interesting perspective for a "steam" man in the face of an onrushing new technology..The Diesel era, Robert Blinkerd, certainly makes a good argument for then current and future steam technology. A single engineer operated locomotive w/o a fireman. The Unions would have probably screamed like wounded animals had it moved into the real world of Classed railroads.

" Manufacturers, eager to sell this new type of locomotive, made studies of existing operations. On many of these operations they found obsolete steam locomotives 25 to 30—and I have even seen them 40— years old. Some of these manufacturers were not aware of the fact that maintenance costs rise rapidly with age. All that they saw was that in the first year of the operation of a new Diesel locomotive they could make a substantial saving over the sums that had been spent in maintaining obsolete steam locomotives. And so they claimed for the Diesel locomotive a saving in operating cost which arose— not out of the Diesel itself—but out of the substitution of a new for an old locomotive. And so I suggest to you that whenever you set out to study the economy of installing Diesels, the greatest safeguard that you can have is to first set up what modern properly designed steam power will do in that operation. If then the Diesel still indicates substantial savings, and those savings would pay a higher return upon the larger investment in the Diesel, then you have a case for Diesel application. " Robert Blinkerd quote from the article Muzzle not the Ox
Thanks ww for sharing this.
Sam

[wallyworld]

He certainly was a compelling and well spoken man.I am a big fan of what if's. What if this happened instead of that? There was a fellow by the name of Porta who is on my "most admired list" for improving steam technology in the face of overwhelming odds and amazingly, in many cases, was successful as well as had employment doing this. I have posted this list of his maxims in my office.


No problem badly defined can have a solution (no ill person can be cured if badly diagnosed.)
The level of any discussion is given by the least informed party or the one whose intelligence has been least trained.
To understand is to become equal.
If I, at this moment, am unable to demonstrate that you are mistaken, that does not mean you are right.
The art of the lawyer is to pass the burden of proof to the other.
No-one realises that they don't know something until they know it. The prehistoric stone-cutter died without knowing that logarithms exist. Cicero didn't know that electricity existed; he was not even able to suspect that it might. This is the fundamental problem with the theory of knowledge (it seems that Ing. Porta has discovered this).
The Office Theory (Brazil): what I don't understand is necessarily wrong.
Whether the scholars and followers of St. Thomas Aquinas like it or not, evidence is not a sufficient criteria for truth. Galileo was condemned because it was evident that the sun circled round the earth, iron ships could not float, etc.
The best level is achieved by the written not the spoken word.
The accuracy of all judgement depends on the accuracy of the information on which it is based.
In all discussion which is always dominated by reasoning that elucidates the truth, there is no deaf person worse than one who does not want to hear.
Only great spirits have broad enough shoulders to bear the brunt of back-tracking on a subject they have defended all their lives.
Each person is a prisoner of his own history. That is why great changes can only be made by the next generation.
When someone writes an article and for some reason wishes to avoid saying something ("hiding the milk") [an Argentine saying that captures both the intention to conceal something quite innocuous and the fact that in time the smell will give disclose what is no longer innocuous!], the subconscious always betrays them and they end up saying more than they meant to. At the fifth reading what was concealed is revealed.
When an article is written containing emphatic assertions (because they are evident), after a few years it becomes clear that they ought not to have been asserted quite so firmly.
It is important to read a lot of old, apparently outdated, things. The information they give is susceptible to reinterpretation thanks to the progress of knowledge. Moreover, they force open new mental processes of a creative nature. This is especially valuable for patents.
Functionaries never let it be known or felt that they represent the community. This is seen, for example, in the discussions that are held between the employment minister and the trades union leaders (it was even worse before!)
There are subtle concepts that are, nevertheless, important.
Oh! the false dilemmas!
No chain is stronger than its weakest link.
A failure does not prove anything, but one single success does prove that something is possible.
One failure might have any explanation; two failures and things become very ugly, but three, and the gods are against you.
Computers are no substitute for talent.
The law cannot go against the nature of things.
Three women cannot be set to produce a baby in three months.
Laws are made for man not man for laws. If something doesn't work the law (norms) must be changed.
There are some norms that are so for historical reasons and others because they are essential affirmations. The former may be violated but the latter no.
Never take anything for granted.
Know that what isn't written down doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Interesting, ww.

What strikes me is the eloquence of this man.

And regardless the technology available to the railroads, the larger forces have prevailed. I think of the post currently running about commuter service - the inherent centralizing force that rail represents trying to make it in a time of decentralization.