Muzzle Not The Ox

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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/

[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

[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

[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.

[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 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 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.

[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 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

[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".

[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.

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.

[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?

[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

[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]

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
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

[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]

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

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.

[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 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 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?

[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.

[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!

[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.