Muzzle Not The Ox

[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...........

[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

[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

[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 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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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
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?

[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.

[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]

Its called an articulated engine in steam terms.

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

[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.

[Anonymous]

[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.

[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 .

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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/

[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.

[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.

[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.