Diesel versus Steam

[JonathanS]

It seemed to purport that eleven diesels could do what 30 steamers did.  Could there be more?

As far as the N&W's Y6 classes were concerned, it took 2 1/2 GP9's to haul the same tonnage as one Y6.

But when that Y6 dropped its train it headed for the roundhouse for service and to wait for the next road freight.  The set of 3 geeps could be broken up and used for switching the yard, for local peddlers, for light branch lines (such as the Abingdon branch) while they were waiting for the road freight. The Y was unsuitable for most of those duties. So in this case, not counting the higher out of service time typical for steam (yes I know the last of the A, J & Y classes on N&W and the Niagaras on the NYC but they were the exceptions and had outstanding availabilities), 3 diesels easily replaced 4 steam locomotives.

Well, I doubt there is support for the idea that 3 1250 hp units replaced four 5,000 hp Northerns anywhere. This is just ridiculous.

Even the railroads began to see it differently.

Those little GP's that could go anywhere are long gone. When four of them were lashed together to equal the pulling power of a Northern, they ran up four times as many unit miles as the Northern to produce the same amount of work, utilizing thousands of more moving parts. No wonder, as greyhounds accurately points out above, railroads were positively anxious to move to the next generation of Diesel-electric motive power.

MILW was the first to realize that "GP" wasn't the solution it was cracked up to be -- and ordered the first "SD." Since then, it's been a horsepower race -- trying to get single unit locomotives back up to where Steam was 60 years ago -- 5000 and 6000 hp single unit designs.

But that trend is exactly contrary to the poster's contention about the Y6. It's weight, size and power are what the railroads are trying to buy today.

And that has been a tough technological struggle. High HP almost always brings a shorter economic service life. The Northern had a 2,000,0000 mile service life; the first FT's were proudly advertised far and wide as they passed "1,000,000 miles and counting ....", but that was a high water mark, and the big units now appear to be down to about 720,0000 miles.

That's almost gasoline engine lifespan -- which is a cheaper fuel now as well.

Again you say that now, some 50 year later, when railroads have to do business much differently than in 1945, that because the current business climate requires different decisions, then the decisions made back then must have been incorrect.  Amazing!!!!!  I wish I had people working for me who could be sure that the decisions we make are correct today and will be the correct decisions forever, no matter the circumstances.

Show me any EMD GP that was 1250 horsepower, I know of a very few 1350 HP that reused FT engines in a GP body, but the GP7 was 1500 and it has been uphill since.

The SD was not developed for higher horsepower.  GM came out with the SD7, SD9, and SD18 in respose to the very effective marketing first by Baldwin and later by ALCO marketing six axle power to use on very light rail branchlines.  The SD7, SD9 and SD18 exactly matched the horsepower of the equivalant Geeps (and F7 and F9 for the first two).  Milwaukee needed something that could go where Geeps were too heavy footed.  The SD7 fit the bill nicely, as did the ALCO RSC2, RSD4 and the Baldwin DRS 6-4-1500.

I am surprised at your comment about the cost of diesel.  The diesel fuel I purchased today was nearly 10 cents cheaper than the least expensive gasoline at any of the stations I passed on my way to work.  Must be some difference in the taxes.

[gabe]

[

Is this the same C&IM who's owners - a few short years after dieselization - tried to jettison by offering the line for $1?  (Yep, that's one dollar!)

And there were no takers!

Yes.

The GM&O beat 'em cold.

The rail/barge movement through Havana couldn't compete with the GM&O unit trains.  Doesn't change things a bit.  Diesels trumped steam.

Somebody could write a book on how George Stern "saved" the C&IM.  Eventually, there was a "taker".

Today it's part of the Genesee & Wyoming family and known as the "Illinois & Midland." 

Not to take you to task on a subject of which you know more than I, but the GM&O beat them cold?  How was the GM&O in competition with the C&IM?

The Wabash/N&W served at Taylorville, the IC at Divernon, the IC at Havahna, the CNW at Athens, you name it at Peoria.

Admittedly, the GM&O served the C&IM's location of Springfield, but the C&IM did ship coal to Springfield--or did it before my time?

Did the GM&O serve Peoria?

Oh, wait a minute, I am forgetting the old GM&O line that cut across the state aren't I but is no longer in existence.  Was that the souce of the competition?

Once again, I am not disagreeing with you, I am just confused how this could have been the case.

Gabe

[MichaelSol]

It seemed to purport that eleven diesels could do what 30 steamers did.  Could there be more?

As far as the N&W's Y6 classes were concerned, it took 2 1/2 GP9's to haul the same tonnage as one Y6.

But when that Y6 dropped its train it headed for the roundhouse for service and to wait for the next road freight.  The set of 3 geeps could be broken up and used for switching the yard, for local peddlers, for light branch lines (such as the Abingdon branch) while they were waiting for the road freight. The Y was unsuitable for most of those duties. So in this case, not counting the higher out of service time typical for steam (yes I know the last of the A, J & Y classes on N&W and the Niagaras on the NYC but they were the exceptions and had outstanding availabilities), 3 diesels easily replaced 4 steam locomotives.

Well, I doubt there is support for the idea that 3 1250 hp units replaced four 5,000 hp Northerns anywhere. This is just ridiculous.

Even the railroads began to see it differently.

Those little GP's that could go anywhere are long gone. When four of them were lashed together to equal the pulling power of a Northern, they ran up four times as many unit miles as the Northern to produce the same amount of work, utilizing thousands of more moving parts. No wonder, as greyhounds accurately points out above, railroads were positively anxious to move to the next generation of Diesel-electric motive power.

MILW was the first to realize that "GP" wasn't the solution it was cracked up to be -- and ordered the first "SD." Since then, it's been a horsepower race -- trying to get single unit locomotives back up to where Steam was 60 years ago -- 5000 and 6000 hp single unit designs.

But that trend is exactly contrary to the poster's contention about the Y6. It's weight, size and power are what the railroads are trying to buy today.

And that has been a tough technological struggle. For internal combustion engines, high HP almost always brings a shorter economic service life; that doesn't appear to have been true for external combustion engines. The Northern had a 2,000,0000 mile service life; the first FT's were proudly advertised far and wide as they passed "1,000,000 miles and counting ....", but that was a high water mark, and the big units now appear to be down to about 720,0000 miles.

That's almost gasoline engine lifespan -- which is a cheaper fuel now as well.

 

 

[gabe]

What I would give to purchase the, now, I&M for a dollar.  Heck, I would pay two.

[JonathanS]

According to more authoritative sources, the following was true of the C&IM:

1945: 607,809,000 ton miles of revenue freight, with 28 steam locomotives with a total of 1,666,000 lbs of tractive effort. [Statistics of Railways of the United States, 1945, p. 370]

It replaced its steam fleet with diesels in 1956, when it carried 354,689,000 ton miles of revenue freight with diesel-electric locomotives with a combined tractive effort of 816,000 lbs. [Transport Statistics of the United States, 1956, p. 299].

...............

Based on diesel availability of 90% (they never came close) .....

First the numbers you are giving by your division is the number of Ton Miles generated by each pound of combined Tractive Effort.  The division is correct but your conclusion is not.  The steam locomotives were able to generate 364 ton miles for each pound of TE in 1945 while the diesels in 1956 generated 434 ton miles for each pound of TE.  The prize in this case goes to the diesels 

Steam:

1,666,000 lbs of tractive effort. Available TE = 1666000 x .6 = 999,6000 lbs of actual TE. This tractive effort is moving 607,809,000 net ton miles of freight. That's 608 NTM/lb TE.

Diesel:

816,000 lbs of tractive effort. Available TE = 816,000 x .9 = 734,400 lbs of TE, which is moving 354,689,000 net ton miles of freight. That's 483 NTM/lb of TE.

Premise:

The higher the number of NTM moved per lb of tractive effort, the more efficient the system.

Conclusion:

Steam was moving more NTM per pound of available Tractive Effort.

Conversation:

Each pound of available TE of steam was moving 1.26 times the tonnage of each pound of available Diesel-electric TE. Less Steam Tractive Effort was moving more tonnage. This doesn't fit the premise of the original poster -- nor my own predispositions on the matter.

Caveat: the steam was "somewhere" between 15 and 30 years old in 1945; the Diesel-electric in 1956 was brand new. Assuming that the Diesel-electric was operating at its rating, and the Steam was operating substantially below its rated capacity because of age and wear, and that the Steam engine average might be 20% below rated capacity, then 799,680 lbs of Steam TE was actually available, and in that case each "actual" lb of Tractive Effort was moving 760 NTM of freight, or 1.6 times each equivalent lb of Tractive Effort generated by the Diesel-Electric locomotive.

I am hardly infallible on "back of the envelope" math calculations, but I do not understand your conclusion.

Now, I don't happen to think they were much different, but that the problem lies in an invalid assumption as to availability since the calculation is most sensitive to that assumption. Either the assumption as to 90% availability of Diesel is too high, or the assumption of 60% availability of Steam is too low, or a combination thereof.

You sure do change your tune often.  You repeatedly say that road diesels never achieved 90% availability, but then you turn around and use that same 90% in your calculations to "prove" that diesels were the wrong choice.

As a manager in a manufacturing concern I can say with assurance than for the purposes being discussed here the on stream factor is irrelevant for these calculations.  Any capital tool is eating up resources continuously.  As long as it is on the books it is taxed, it is depreciated (and I am not talking IRS depreciation I am talking internal corporate depreciation), it requires insurance, and it must receive some level of maintenance, supervision, and security.  It does not matter if a locomotive is out on the road earning its keep, in the roundhouse having its boiler washed, or in the shops getting a class 3 overhaul.  The locomotive is on the books and it is considered by management, the government, and the stockholders as available and usable.  Thus in 1945 the 607,809,000 TM being moved by 1,666,000 lb TE yields 365 TM/lb TE while in 1956 354,689,000 being moved by 816,000 lb TE yields 435 Ton Mile per pound Tractive Effort.  Management improved productivity using this yardstick.

If I would go to my management and make the case that based on the numbers given here that steam was the better choice because during the hours it is operational it is more productive than diesel and just ignore that it is off line a larger part of each day than are diesels, then I would very quickly be looking for employment elsewhere.  The amount of output per month or year per amount of input is what counts.

I am not saying that the on stream factor is unimportant.  Just the opposite.  A capital tool that produces less per hour but is operational more hours per day/week/month can very easily the the better choice for higher productivity and lower overall cost.

[JonathanS]

It seemed to purport that eleven diesels could do what 30 steamers did.  Could there be more?

As far as the N&W's Y6 classes were concerned, it took 2 1/2 GP9's to haul the same tonnage as one Y6.

But when that Y6 dropped its train it headed for the roundhouse for service and to wait for the next road freight.  The set of 3 geeps could be broken up and used for switching the yard, for local peddlers, for light branch lines (such as the Abingdon branch) while they were waiting for the road freight. The Y was unsuitable for most of those duties. So in this case, not counting the higher out of service time typical for steam (yes I know the last of the A, J & Y classes on N&W and the Niagaras on the NYC belie that statement, but they were the exceptions and had outstanding availabilities), 3 diesels easily replaced 4 steam locomotives.

[MidlandPacific]

Tom, the Brown study is available.  I e-mailed Michael requesting a copy, and he sent me one about a day later.

I don't think that's really the point any more.

Michael, I see why you said "I'm going to regret this," and I'm sorry I dragged you into this mess.  I do appreciate the Brown report and your info on the Milwaukee; thanks for taking the time.

[Dakguy201]

Tom, the Brown study is available.  I e-mailed Michael requesting a copy, and he sent me one about a day later.

[cordon]

I think it's difficult to second-guess how top managers made specific decisions in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.  One factor not yet mentioned is the tendency of top managers to want to modernize, literally to have the latest and greatest.  I'm sure that ALCO, GM, and Fairbanks-Morse outdid themselves to convince everyone that the new Diesel-electrics were the way to the future.

It is very likely that most of the economic analyses available to management came from those companies, or people friendly to them, and were biased in favor of Dieselization. 

Another factor I haven't seen yet is wear and tear on the rails.  I personally believe that vibrations from steam engines are insignificant compared to vibrations caused by rail joints.  I base this belief on personal observation.  Therefore, I believe, the relatively less wear and tear on the rails of the Diesel-electric locomotive was not a convincing factor until a RR began to replace jointed rail with continuous welded rail, which was beginning to occur in the early 50s.  On continuous welded rail the vibration from a steam locomotive, compared to that from a Diesel-electric locomotive, could have been a significant relative cost factor.  If I had been trying to sell Diesel-electrics in 1952, I would certainly have shown an analysis that came to that conclusion.

 

[greyhounds]

[

Is this the same C&IM who's owners - a few short years after dieselization - tried to jettison by offering the line for $1?  (Yep, that's one dollar!)

And there were no takers!

Yes.

The GM&O beat 'em cold.

The rail/barge movement through Havana couldn't compete with the GM&O unit trains.  Doesn't change things a bit.  Diesels trumped steam.

Somebody could write a book on how George Stern "saved" the C&IM.  Eventually, there was a "taker".

Today it's part of the Genesee & Wyoming family and known as the "Illinois & Midland." 

[Anonymous]

Your own data here shows the fallacy of Brown's study.  Between 1945 and 1956 the C&IM lost over 40% of its traffic.  Had they kept the steam locomotives that existed in 1945 the results would have been only 212 ton miles per pound of TE.  Certainly not good utilization of capital equipment.  The C&IM made the correct decision by purchasing diesels that would spend less time in the roundhouse and could be used more hours each day allowing all road, peddler, and switching jobs to be covered by a lesser number of locomotives. 

My entire point was that the traffic declined. The original poster felt that the conversion from a large number of steam to a smaller number of diesels reflected an inherent efficiency. No, it reflected a substantially smaller traffic load, and reflected the official retirement of an elderly class of locomotives -- many of which were probably being cannabalized -- and replacement with a fully working class. And those numbers were considerably fewer because, as the original poster declined to admit -- the tonnage carried had dropped significantly.

Of course traffic declined after 1945 (the year you cited)  WWII ended.  So freaking what?  Leave it to you to pick a peak traffic World War year and compare it to 10 years latter and say "business declined".

The impressive results of buying diesels, as in replacing 30 active steam engines with 11 diesels, stands.  But it doen't tell the story you want, so you, once again, resort to fantasy railroading.

You create a fantasy in which C&IM management wastefully (and stupidly) kept a junkyard of unused steam locomotives as a potential parts supply.  No.  They were acquiring steam locomotives as late as 1952.  Now they wouldn't be buying locomoitves if they had surplus locomotives, now would they be?  They needed 30 active steam locomotives to operate the railroad.

The railroad's management had three options in the mid 50s. 

1) Just keep going like they were.  There was no crisis.  The freight was being moved.  No need for a change to diesel power.

2) Buy relatively new, "modern" steam 2nd hand.  Virtually any type of steam locomotive was available at basically scrap value.  If continued steam would have been viable this would have been a very attractive option.  The fact that experienced railroad management didn't go this way on a 'coal road' speaks volumes.

3) Buy new diesels. 

They took two EMD demonstrators, evaluated them, then bought two SW1200s, evaluated them, then junked steam.   And 11 diesel locomotives replaced 30 steam locomotives.

Now these were just "11" locomotives.  No one had jumped off a cliff here.  If diesels were a mistake, they were a mistake that could be fixed.  There was a market for those diesels.  They could be sold.

By 1960-1962 the C&IM had had years to evaluate the diesels' performance.  And they needed more power.  More coal was moving to the "Powerton" generating station near Pekin and a 2nd Taylorville-Havana turn was going to be added.  And once again, good, "modern" 2nd hand steam locomoitives were available.  If there had been a "mistake" they could have corrected it by buying used steam.

What did they do?  They went back to EMD for more diesels. 

Now you can sit there all day saying that steam was the better choice, but the people running the numbers bought diesels.  And no, they were not stupid.

Is this the same C&IM who's owners - a few short years after dieselization - tried to jettison by offering the line for $1?  (Yep, that's one dollar!)

And there were no takers!

[MichaelSol]

What changed?  You even quoted the part "just about the time Bergie locked the thread." Two entries was hardly a discussion.

Is there anything more you need to say to acknowledge that this is an ongoing personal agenda with you?

 

[MichaelSol]

Of course traffic declined after 1945 (the year you cited)  WWII ended.  So freaking what?  Leave it to you to pick a peak traffic World War year and compare it to 10 years latter and say "business declined".

It was the part you conveniently left out.

"So freakin what?" You left out why they had 28 steam locomotives in the first place -- they used them to haul a lot of ton miles.

Why were they able to reduce to so few diesels? Not as you purported to represent -- that diesels were so much more efficient. You withheld key information. Now I see why.

Traffic had dropped in half.

You didn't mention that. Your post purported to represent that the diesel units replaced the steam units in equivalent service.

That is clearly not what happened.

And the replacement diesels were not nearly as efficient at hauling the tonnage as the Steam hauling twice the tonnage with more than twice the number of units.

Let's review. It needed 28 steam locomotives to move 607,809,000 net ton miles of freight in 1945, but it "would have" needed 30 steam locomotives to move 354,689,000 net ton miles in 1956. Because nobody was cannabilizing steam by then. These were all active steam locomotives -- because you were there, and it makes complete sense.

According to you, it took two more steam locomotives to haul half the tonnage of 1945. According to your theory of motive power, the more steam engines, the less they can haul. The fewer diesel-electrics, the more they can haul.

And you actually think that makes sense.

That's "what so freakin' what."

 

[TomDiehl]

As to the rest of it, on the last thread, the only parts of the Brown study anyone saw on there was what you decided to post, which amounted to about three or four pages of it. And your claim that you said you'd make it available if possible, never saw an entry that said you actually did.

But just yesterday:

What I found interesting in the last thread this obscure study was discussed, one other forum member found a copy of it and started to dispute your interpretation just about the time Bergie locked the thread.

Bizarre. Your story changes every single day.

 

What changed?  You even quoted the part "just about the time Bergie locked the thread." Two entries was hardly a discussion.

[greyhounds]

Your own data here shows the fallacy of Brown's study.  Between 1945 and 1956 the C&IM lost over 40% of its traffic.  Had they kept the steam locomotives that existed in 1945 the results would have been only 212 ton miles per pound of TE.  Certainly not good utilization of capital equipment.  The C&IM made the correct decision by purchasing diesels that would spend less time in the roundhouse and could be used more hours each day allowing all road, peddler, and switching jobs to be covered by a lesser number of locomotives. 

My entire point was that the traffic declined. The original poster felt that the conversion from a large number of steam to a smaller number of diesels reflected an inherent efficiency. No, it reflected a substantially smaller traffic load, and reflected the official retirement of an elderly class of locomotives -- many of which were probably being cannabalized -- and replacement with a fully working class. And those numbers were considerably fewer because, as the original poster declined to admit -- the tonnage carried had dropped significantly.

Of course traffic declined after 1945 (the year you cited)  WWII ended.  So freaking what?  Leave it to you to pick a peak traffic World War year and compare it to 10 years latter and say "business declined".

The impressive results of buying diesels, as in replacing 30 active steam engines with 11 diesels, stands.  But it doen't tell the story you want, so you, once again, resort to fantasy railroading.

You create a fantasy in which C&IM management wastefully (and stupidly) kept a junkyard of unused steam locomotives as a potential parts supply.  No.  They were acquiring steam locomotives as late as 1952.  Now they wouldn't be buying locomoitves if they had surplus locomotives, now would they be?  They needed 30 active steam locomotives to operate the railroad.

The railroad's management had three options in the mid 50s. 

1) Just keep going like they were.  There was no crisis.  The freight was being moved.  No need for a change to diesel power.

2) Buy relatively new, "modern" steam 2nd hand.  Virtually any type of steam locomotive was available at basically scrap value.  If continued steam would have been viable this would have been a very attractive option.  The fact that experienced railroad management didn't go this way on a 'coal road' speaks volumes.

3) Buy new diesels. 

They took two EMD demonstrators, evaluated them, then bought two SW1200s, evaluated them, then junked steam.   And 11 diesel locomotives replaced 30 steam locomotives.

Now these were just "11" locomotives.  No one had jumped off a cliff here.  If diesels were a mistake, they were a mistake that could be fixed.  There was a market for those diesels.  They could be sold.

By 1960-1962 the C&IM had had years to evaluate the diesels' performance.  And they needed more power.  More coal was moving to the "Powerton" generating station near Pekin and a 2nd Taylorville-Havana turn was going to be added.  And once again, good, "modern" 2nd hand steam locomoitives were available.  If there had been a "mistake" they could have corrected it by buying used steam.

What did they do?  They went back to EMD for more diesels. 

Now you can sit there all day saying that steam was the better choice, but the people running the numbers bought diesels.  And no, they were not stupid.

 

[MichaelSol]

As to the rest of it, on the last thread, the only parts of the Brown study anyone saw on there was what you decided to post, which amounted to about three or four pages of it. And your claim that you said you'd make it available if possible, never saw an entry that said you actually did.

But just yesterday:

What I found interesting in the last thread this obscure study was discussed, one other forum member found a copy of it and started to dispute your interpretation just about the time Bergie locked the thread.

Bizarre. Your story changes every single day.

 

[MichaelSol]

As far as "rational discussions," maybe you should reread your comments to CNW6000 on page seven. The tone of that is hardly "rational."

The part where I said: "Wise and efficient, how?"

I didn't call him any names, didn't impugn his reading ability, didn't make a "CNWHubris6000" crack, didn't call him a "loser," didn't refer to his written comments as "drivel" -- all standard response procedures for you that you have used over and over again. I can see how it would be an irrational response to you.

 

[TomDiehl]

After his misguided advice on the other thread about where to find a copy of the study, and my remarks of frustration, somehow I don't see that happening.

No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown

Your ability to twist even your own comments is unbelievable.

And your reading ability still hasn't improved. I guess that's what happens to someone that has the audacity to disagree with the great MichaelHubrisSol

Aside from the positively bizarre comment -- my "reading ability hasn't improved and" you "guess that's what happens to someone that has the audacity to disagree with" ... myself???

Have you completely lost it? These threads are passing from the merely offensive to the absolutely incomprehensible. The moderator needs to recognize, there is something wrong here and it keeps recurring from thread to thread, and its not rational and its not reasonable, and its not designed to conduct civil conversations about anything ...

Well, this is exactly what happened to the other thread -- Diehl began his usual personal attacks on Brown -- "the great Oz, I mean Brown" who was "a loser" and whose "drivel" he would not read.

And of course Brown had no opportunity to "misread" anything Diehl said, since Brown was dead. That didn't stop the torrent of personal abuse.  Nor the wholesale fabrication of "all the studies" Diehl claimed existed that refuted Brown -- except, Diehl hadn't seen a one. Made 'em all up. Just for that thread. Just so he could call Brown a "loser."

"Audacity". My "reading ability"? Because you say what you say and I read it?

This is trolling pure and simple. This is exactly what happened before. It's not the thread, it's not the topic, moderator, and it's not "oh gosh can't you boys just get along" -- it's the trolls you have on these forums that stop rational discussions in their tracks.

 

To your first comment, you're right, I shouldn't have used the word "guess."

As to the rest of it, on the last thread, the only parts of the Brown study anyone saw on there was what you decided to post, which amounted to about three or four pages of it. And your claim that you said you'd make it available if possible, never saw an entry that said you actually did.

As far as "rational discussions," maybe you should reread your comments to CNW6000 on page seven. The tone of that is hardly "rational."

[MichaelSol]

According to more authoritative sources, the following was true of the C&IM:

1945: 607,809,000 ton miles of revenue freight, with 28 steam locomotives with a total of 1,666,000 lbs of tractive effort. [Statistics of Railways of the United States, 1945, p. 370]

It replaced its steam fleet with diesels in 1956, when it carried 354,689,000 ton miles of revenue freight with diesel-electric locomotives with a combined tractive effort of 816,000 lbs. [Transport Statistics of the United States, 1956, p. 299].

...............

Based on diesel availability of 90% (they never came close) .....

First the numbers you are giving by your division is the number of Ton Miles generated by each pound of combined Tractive Effort.  The division is correct but your conclusion is not.  The steam locomotives were able to generate 364 ton miles for each pound of TE in 1945 while the diesels in 1956 generated 434 ton miles for each pound of TE.  The prize in this case goes to the diesels 

Steam:

1,666,000 lbs of tractive effort. Available TE = 1666000 x .6 = 999,6000 lbs of actual TE. This tractive effort is moving 607,809,000 net ton miles of freight. That's 608 NTM/lb TE.

Diesel:

816,000 lbs of tractive effort. Available TE = 816,000 x .9 = 734,400 lbs of TE, which is moving 354,689,000 net ton miles of freight. That's 483 NTM/lb of TE.

Premise:

The higher the number of NTM moved per lb of tractive effort, the more efficient the system.

Conclusion:

Steam was moving more NTM per pound of available Tractive Effort.

Conversation:

Each pound of available TE of steam was moving 1.26 times the tonnage of each pound of available Diesel-electric TE. Less Steam Tractive Effort was moving more tonnage. This doesn't fit the premise of the original poster -- nor my own predispositions on the matter.

Caveat: the steam was "somewhere" between 15 and 30 years old in 1945; the Diesel-electric in 1956 was brand new. Assuming that the Diesel-electric was operating at its rating, and the Steam was operating substantially below its rated capacity because of age and wear, and that the Steam engine average might be 20% below rated capacity, then 799,680 lbs of Steam TE was actually available, and in that case each "actual" lb of Tractive Effort was moving 760 NTM of freight, or 1.6 times each equivalent lb of Tractive Effort generated by the Diesel-Electric locomotive.

I am hardly infallible on "back of the envelope" math calculations, but I do not understand your conclusion.

Now, I don't happen to think they were much different, but that the problem lies in an invalid assumption as to availability since the calculation is most sensitive to that assumption. Either the assumption as to 90% availability of Diesel is too high, or the assumption of 60% availability of Steam is too low, or a combination thereof.

 

[TomDiehl]

Tom,

 I received your email, and took a look at the study.  If I understand you correctly, the core of your objection to Michael's argument is contained in the tables on page 14 of the Brown report.  Now, because you limited yourself to saying "I guess page 7 entry 14 answers your question," I'm not sure exactly what you meant - possibly that total operating costs (the final column) appear to drop over the period in question.  Because operating costs are related to overall business, the operating ratio is probably a better indication of how effectively the roads are operating, since it represents the cost of earning.  For a better illustration of the point I think you're trying to make, you need to continue through the report and look at Figure 21 on page 270, which directly compares the costs of repairing steam and diesel motive power. 

Brown basically says what Michael's claiming he says - that diesel engines don't last as long as the ICC and the purchasers thought they would, that a given amount of diesel power costs more than the equivalent amount of steam power (refer to the charts on p266), and they cost more to maintain.  Brown's concluding sentence is just what Michael claims it is: "In road service, diesel motive power has added to the burden of American railways." 

I don't think anyone's trying to put the beer back in the bottle.  There are plenty of choices that institutions make that turn out to be bad, but can't be undone.  It's important and interesting to study them, and to figure out how they happened, and that's all Michael's trying to do. 

No, the page and entry number was to this thread, I don't have a copy of the study.

[BigJim]

It seemed to purport that eleven diesels could do what 30 steamers did.  Could there be more?

As far as the N&W's Y6 classes were concerned, it took 2 1/2 GP9's to haul the same tonnage as one Y6.

[MichaelSol]

Your own data here shows the fallacy of Brown's study.  Between 1945 and 1956 the C&IM lost over 40% of its traffic.  Had they kept the steam locomotives that existed in 1945 the results would have been only 212 ton miles per pound of TE.  Certainly not good utilization of capital equipment.  The C&IM made the correct decision by purchasing diesels that would spend less time in the roundhouse and could be used more hours each day allowing all road, peddler, and switching jobs to be covered by a lesser number of locomotives. 

My entire point was that the traffic declined. The original poster felt that the conversion from a large number of steam to a smaller number of diesels reflected an inherent efficiency. No, it reflected a substantially smaller traffic load, and reflected the official retirement of an elderly class of locomotives -- many of which were probably being cannabalized -- and replacement with a fully working class. And those numbers were considerably fewer because, as the original poster declined to admit -- the tonnage carried had dropped significantly.

Further, however, your comments mistate Brown's critique. His primary objection to the advertising campaign for dieselization was precisely the misrepresentation you repeat here: "that diesel was inherently superior to steam", whereas as a factual matter, what they were really only saying was that a brand new machine is inherently more efficient than a machine that is 20, 30, 40 years old.

EMD promoted it as a revolution in motive power. Brown thought it was kind of a "well, Duh" moment. You would prove the same thing comparing new Diesels to old Diesels, new Steam to old Steam, new horses to old horses.

What Brown pointed out was that when you compare a brand new machine with an old machine, you are pretty well going to get a result that shows that a brand new machine performs better than an old machine. It cannot be used, as a matter of good engineering and good analysis, to prove that one type is inherently better than the other -- because of the flaw in the premise.

And with your methodology, you prove nothing about dieselization and steam, you only demonstrate that new machines generally perform better than old ones. That, Brown argued, utilizes a profound statistical fallacy to attempt to justify an important investment decision. As I pointed out earlier, you are relying in this specific instance by reference to the C&IM, a fleet based comparison of noncomparable fleets. They are not comparable. You cannot obtain a valid conclusion from any comparison that corrupts its control group  that is, the need for comparable motive power.

That was the point of Brown's study: get rid of the statistical fallacy and then examine the economics of the decision and how it played out.

 

[MichaelSol]

lf it was such a wrong decision to go from steam to diesel ((wich is realy diesel electric)) then why would the rest of the world eventualy copy?  It is realy all about the electric traction motors.

If you insist on getting the premise wrong, no doubt you are also arriving at the wrong conclusion.

[MichaelSol]

What many people in this thread seem to want to ignore is that most of the early diesels that were replaced after 15 years or so were not retired because they were beyond economic repair. 

While I appreciate the energy you are putting into the discussion, there is this habit of knocking down straw men. Who made this remark on this thread? I haven't seen anyone, let alone "many people," remotely suggest that they weren't retired because they were beyond economic repair. I haven't noticed that anyone yet brought up the issue of retirement vs repair at all in this particular discussion.

[MichaelSol]

On your jab against diesel availability, I will again cite the 1940's switcher study the Reading did.  Except for the oddball St Louis switcher which was worse than steam, all of the switchers, Alco, Baldwin, and EMC had availabilities right around 90%.  This is railroad company data, not mine.

Well, on my "jab", this is the straw man. No one has argued that diesel switchers weren't the way to go. You can cite the 1940's Reading study. You can cite Brown for that matter, why don't you? However, as far as general diesel availability is concerned -- and again this is age related and class related -- EMD published figures in 1972 that showed that the typical road diesel electric of the SD-40/SD-40-2 class which then represented, hopefully the penultimate of improvements by that time, had a statistical availability of 84%.

If Brown didn't say it enough times, and I haven't said it enough times, then here's once more for good measure: the diesel electric switcher proved its worth, many times over, over steam.

 

[TH&B]

lf it was such a wrong decision to go from steam to diesel ((wich is realy diesel electric)) then why would the rest of the world eventualy copy?  It is realy all about the electric traction motors.

[JonathanS]

According to more authoritative sources, the following was true of the C&IM:

1945: 607,809,000 ton miles of revenue freight, with 28 steam locomotives with a total of 1,666,000 lbs of tractive effort. [Statistics of Railways of the United States, 1945, p. 370]

It replaced its steam fleet with diesels in 1956, when it carried 354,689,000 ton miles of revenue freight with diesel-electric locomotives with a combined tractive effort of 816,000 lbs. [Transport Statistics of the United States, 1956, p. 299].

...............

Based on diesel availability of 90% (they never came close) .....

First the numbers you are giving by your division is the number of Ton Miles generated by each pound of combined Tractive Effort.  The division is correct but your conclusion is not.  The steam locomotives were able to generate 364 ton miles for each pound of TE in 1945 while the diesels in 1956 generated 434 ton miles for each pound of TE.  The prize in this case goes to the diesels 

Your own data here shows the fallacy of Brown's study.  Between 1945 and 1956 the C&IM lost over 40% of its traffic.  Had they kept the steam locomotives that existed in 1945 the results would have been only 212 ton miles per pound of TE.  Certainly not good utilization of capital equipment.  The C&IM made the correct decision by purchasing diesels that would spend less time in the roundhouse and could be used more hours each day allowing all road, peddler, and switching jobs to be covered by a lesser number of locomotives.  The loss of the traffic is not the fault of the locomotives.

What many people in this thread seem to want to ignore is that most of the early diesels that were replaced after 15 years or so were not retired because they were beyond economic repair.  Instead, the efficiency of the diesel locomotive had increased enough that the purchase of a new locomotive would pay for itself in a short time.  Rather than showing that the economies expected from the first purchases as being false, the purchases of the replacement diesels are entirely separate financial decisions and were wholly independent of the inital diesel purchases.  Again I will cite the Reading when the FTs were 15 years old using Reading Company data as published by the RCT&HS.  An in depth study of rebuilding the FTs as compared to purchasing new GP20s showed that the GP20s would outperform, and be significantly less expensive to operate than the remanufactured FTs.  According to the study the cost difference, including financing, would be recouped by the savings well before loan was repaid.  The Reading conducted this study for a long enough time that by the time the order was placed EMD was beginning to manufacture GP30s.  The Reading could have rebuilt the FTs and expected that doing so would have given another 15 years of service.  However, it was less expensive in the long run to purchase newer locomotives, and the managers made the correct decision again in 1962, just as they did in 1945.

On your jab against diesel availability, I will again cite the 1940's switcher study the Reading did.  Except for the oddball St Louis switcher which was worse than steam, all of the switchers, Alco, Baldwin, and EMC had availabilities right around 90%.  This is railroad company data, not mine.

[MichaelSol]

The point that I'm trying to make is that re-hashing decisions that were made 50+ years ago (dieselization) or 25 years ago (abandonment of PCE) is rather pointless on this forum since almost all of us are not MBA candidates who will be in a position of authority within the foreseeable future.  It's interesting to wonder what might have been but the decisions have been made a long time ago and they are not going to get undone.

You do indeed misunderstand the entire point.

Perhaps the process of business decision analysis would be less annoying to you if you simply let it go and got on with your life instead of commenting on it negatively at regular enough intervals to suggest it bothers you in some fashion that other people have the nerve to talk about it without your approval -- and that you really, really want them to stop talking about what you don't seem to care for. They still teach the Civil War at the Army War College. I imagine you would object to that as well. "It's a long time ago" as though your criteria on historical discussions ought, for some reason, to be controlling as to what other people discuss. Do you have any idea how narcissistic that appears?

You come across in these periodic critiques like nothing more than an angry little boy standing on the sidelines of somebody else's game constantly kicking rocks into it because no one wants to play his game.

What's your point? If you don't like threads about history, ignore them. If you don't like PCE threads, ignore them. If you don't like Steam, stay away from the threads. If you don't like early Diesels, stay away from discussions about them. If you don't like threads about the Penn Central, by all means, go do something else. Don't go barging into a PC thread and tell them it's dead and gone and they shouldn't be talking about it because you disapprove.

You seem to have a real problem with people discussing things that you don't like. Why don't you just stay away from those threads then? It's that simple.

 

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The point that I'm trying to make is that re-hashing decisions that were made 50+ years ago (dieselization) or 25 years ago (abandonment of PCE) is rather pointless on this forum since almost all of us are not MBA candidates who will be in a position of authority within the foreseeable future.  It's interesting to wonder what might have been but the decisions have been made a long time ago and they are not going to get undone.

[MichaelSol]

The problem with speculative history (the railroads should have kept steam, the trustee should not have abandoned the PCE, etc.) is that its practitioners have a lot more information to work with (including subsequent events) than the original decisionmakers and the practitioners often tend to indulge their own prejudices.  It can be viewed as an entertaining intellectual parlor game, nothing more.

Which suggests only that you play parlor games, but have not participated in the real world of decision making. Business schools use, almost exclusively, the case study method of examining how decisions are made, how they are wrongly made, how they are correctly made, and the post-decision factors that do indeed influence outcomes. The purpose: to more comprehensively analyze probable outcomes based upon probabilities of events.

Whether its the military with an after-action report, a business with a post implementation review, or a successful football team with its Monday morning assessment. the exercise is much more important than your mere parlor games -- they are essential to refining the decision making process.

I know from speaking with managers at places like GE, P&G, and Boeing, the post-implementation analysis is important for two reasons: 1) did we meet our goals, 2) if not why not? And the second is of crucial importance because sometimes the theory is actually correct, but the results are disappointing. In process management, the careful evaluation often discloses a flaw in the production process, the implementation, that had nothing to do with the original decision, but rather caused failure for different reasons -- reasons that can be fixed, but only if they are discovered -- rather than just plodding ahead AAR style -- with the idea, well, that's history, it's just a parlor game to actually evaluate what we did. That's the road to failure, not success.

If you don't like business decision analysis, then you have no reason to be involved in business, or the history of business. Play your parlor games.