Diesel versus Steam

[gabe]

Any Nickel Plate fans out there ?

Would it have been economically viable to run the Berks until the 1964 merger ?

Dale,

You obviously have an opinioin on this, please share.  I was hoping some would run with this.  I am interested in what someone with your knowledge thinks.

Gabe

[MidlandPacific]

Contextually my characterization of steam engine as 19th century technology means that it acquired a significant usage and refinement in the 19th century, but that it was rendered obsolete in the suceeding century. 

Well, oddly enough, electricity is a 19th century technology as well.

Both steam and internal combustion were 19th Century technologies. Your characterization of steam as "19th century" appeared to be an editorialization to suggest that anything from the 19th century was anachronistic.  Both steam and internal combustion reached new levels of application and efficiency in the 20th century, often through combinations with other 19th century technology -- specifically electric motors.

The most advanced application of a 19th century technology appears to have occured when linked with a thoroughly 20th century technology -- steam and nuclear -- although most of our efficiently generated energy is generated the good old fashioned way -- coal-fired steam generating plants. A single such plant probably generates more power in a year than was generated by the entire United States in the 19th century. The entire 19th Century. How obsolete is that?

As is so often the case, characterizations such as "19th Century" are nearly useless as a meaningful guide to why one form might be chosen over another. More meaningful, typically, is the cost of the commodity and its distribution providing the power.

We are, after all, reaching a point of having a measureable installed base of wind power.

Which century do you ascribe to that, and does it make it anachronistic, "obsolete" as you put it because of its century of original exploitation?

 

 Michael,

As a matter of interest - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - did you once make an economic case in a different thread for the superiority of steam power over diesel?  If not, don't mean to smear you with other people's interpretations of your views, but if you did - would you mind providing a link?  I would like to read it.

best regards,

[MichaelSol]

As is so often the case, characterizations such as "19th Century" are nearly useless as a meaningful guide to why one form might be chosen over another. More meaningful, typically, is the cost of the commodity and its distribution providing the power.

 Michael,

As a matter of interest - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - did you once make an economic case in a different thread for the superiority of steam power over diesel?  If not, don't mean to smear you with other people's interpretations of your views, but if you did - would you mind providing a link?  I would like to read it.

best regards,

 The thread is here:

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/660935/ShowPost.aspx

In the thread I referenced to the only thorough engineering study ever done after dieselization was completed as to the economic impact of converting the motive power of US railroads from steam to diesel. Early in the thread, I noted that I couldn't find the report, and did a quick evaluation of Milwaukee Road's operating and financing costs, including depreciation write-downs, as I happen to have a complete data set. The data supported the engineering study as I remembered it. Finally, on into the thread, I located the study. H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961). Brown was a well-known and highly respected motive power engineer with the Gibbs & Hill Consulting Firm with a long history with steam, diesel, and electric motive power and particularly on the Pennsylvania RR.

He was ideally suited by training, experience and education to conduct such a study. Moreover, he was hired by an outside railroad attempting to evaluate the American experience -- Brown had no underlying financial or political motive to color the results one way or the other. Further, it was published in what was at that time the most widely recognized international engineering journal, and his study was extensively peer reviewed, including by GM engineers and sales people.

Being an experienced railway motive power engineer, Brown's article was designed to withstand independent scrutiny -- since that was a condition of publication. Accordingly, it was written from a conservative standpoint -- its conclusions had to be rigorously supported by numbers and thorough analysis.

Thereupon erupted one of the most idiotic conversations in the history of this forum.

However, the study stands as one of those models of what such studies should be; a thorough evaluation of a variety of considerations specifically relevant to the decision-making process, and relevant to the financial concerns of railroad management.

Similar studies were done, generally by railroads from other countries seeking to obtain the data from the American experience. A couple of those studies were also published and of interest to the financial implications of the conversion from steam to diesel.

I took the time to post extensive excerpts from Brown's report; my time and trouble thanked with highly intellectual discourse such as "all consultants are losers."

I will not take the time to post further excerpts from professional studies on Trains forums as a result because it was shown not only to be a complete waste of my time, but simply an opportunity for people completely uneducated in the subject matter, completely inexperienced in the field, and completely unequipped to evaluate the validity of engineering and financial data, to show just how petty and venal they can truly be when confronted by professional discussions, professionally presented evidence, and professional conclusions when it conflicts with their predetermined and preformed conclusions.

Or, as one claimed, he didn't believe it because he never saw it in his railfan magazines and anything published in an actual engineering journal was not to be believed, because, he claimed, it was "obscure."

My decision to avoid professional references on Trains has been a good one -- it has saved me much wasted time.

However, that thread contains key excerpts, and if anyone wants a pdf of the original study (Brown's own copy), I would be glad to email it to them.

 

 

[MidlandPacific]

I would love a copy of that pdf - my email address is [e-mail].

I appreciate the link - I don't think I was a regular reader when it went up, but I have come across references to it from time to time (hence the somewhat apologetic request), and those sort of piqued my interest.  Thanks for exposing yourself to another barrage of the usual for my edification.

[MidlandPacific]

This has been kind of a hobby horse of mine ever since I visited Ecuador a few years ago and realized that they had dieselized three times - and two generations of those diesels were sitting in the boneyard, joined by a few of the most recent arrivals, while the crews and maintenance staff seemed perfectly comfortable maintaining and running Baldwins that dated from 1945.  It had literally never occurred to me before I saw it that there might be circumstances where a railroad could run more effectively with steam than diesels (I'm not sure it if was more efficient - but they could certainly do a better job of maintaining them).

 

[gabe]

As is so often the case, characterizations such as "19th Century" are nearly useless as a meaningful guide to why one form might be chosen over another. More meaningful, typically, is the cost of the commodity and its distribution providing the power.

 Michael,

As a matter of interest - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - did you once make an economic case in a different thread for the superiority of steam power over diesel?  If not, don't mean to smear you with other people's interpretations of your views, but if you did - would you mind providing a link?  I would like to read it.

best regards,

 The thread is here:

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/660935/ShowPost.aspx

In the thread I referenced to the only thorough engineering study ever done after dieselization was completed as to the economic impact of converting the motive power of US railroads from steam to diesel. Early in the thread, I noted that I couldn't find the report, and did a quick evaluation of Milwaukee Road's operating and financing costs, including depreciation write-downs, as I happen to have a complete data set. The data supported the engineering study as I remembered it. Finally, on into the thread, I located the study. H. F. Brown, "Economic Results of Diesel Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 175:5 (1961). Brown was a well-known and highly respected motive power engineer with the Gibbs & Hill Consulting Firm with a long history with steam, diesel, and electric motive power and particularly on the Pennsylvania RR.

Thereupon erupted one of the most idiotic conversations in the history of this forum.

However, the study stands as one of those models of what such studies should be; a thorough evaluation of a variety of considerations specifically relevant to the decision-making process, and relevant to the financial concerns of railroad management.

Similar studies were done, generally by railroads from other countries seeking to obtain the data from the American experience. A couple of those studies were also published and of interest to the financial implications of the conversion from steam to diesel.

I took the time to post extensive excerpts from Brown's report; my time and trouble thanked with highly intellectual discourse such as "all consultants are losers."

I will not take the time to post further excerpts from professional studies on Trains forums as a result because it was shown not only to be a complete waste of my time, but simply an opportunity for people completely uneducated in the subject matter, completely inexperienced in the field, and completely unequipped to evaluate the validity of engineering and financial data, to show just how petty and venal they can truly be when confronted by professional discussions, professionally presented evidence, and professional conclusions when it conflicts with their predetermined and preformed conclusions.

Or, as one claimed, he didn't believe it because he never saw it in his railfan magazines and anything published in an actual engineering journal was not to be believed, because, he claimed, it was "obscure."

My decision to avoid professional references on Trains has been a good one -- it has saved me much wasted time.

However, that thread contains key excerpts, and if anyone wants a pdf of the original study (Brown's own copy), I would be glad to email it to them.

 

 

Venal?  I don't mean this in my usual sarcastic way, but that is way too interesting not to elaborate upon.  Please do tell.

Gabe

[nanaimo73]

Any Nickel Plate fans out there ?

Would it have been economically viable to run the Berks until the 1964 merger ?

Dale,

You obviously have an opinioin on this, please share.  I was hoping some would run with this.  I am interested in what someone with your knowledge thinks.

Gabe

Hi Gabe,

It is something I have thought about since that Steam vs Diesel thread but never delved into. I was thinking post-war 2-8-4s and 4-8-4s should have served out a 15 year term, as Michael noted, and the GP30 would have been a pretty good replacement for them. 

[gabe]

Any Nickel Plate fans out there ?

Would it have been economically viable to run the Berks until the 1964 merger ?

Dale,

You obviously have an opinioin on this, please share.  I was hoping some would run with this.  I am interested in what someone with your knowledge thinks.

Gabe

Hi Gabe,

It is something I have thought about since that Steam vs Diesel thread but never delved into. I was thinking post-war 2-8-4s and 4-8-4s should have served out a 15 year term, as Michael noted, and the GP30 would have been a pretty good replacement for them. 

Dale,

Very interesting.  I am of two minds on this--and admit that I do not have the knowledge of either you, Michael or his opponents on this issue.  But, my competing amature conclusions are:

(1)  I am not sure I buy the "GP-30 would have been a good replacement" argument.  Had railroads not bought diesel as they did, would the GP-30 have come along as quickly as it did?  Also, the GP-9--in my humble view--was a much more successful locomotive than the GP-30.  Despite their more elderly disposition, I seem to see a lot more GP-9s and 10s around now days than GP-30s.  I don't know, maybe that was because there were more of them?

(2)  The part of Michael's analysis--going from memory--that I found most convincing was the effect of the immediate and substantial debt incurred by going wholesale to steam.  In other words, had railroads done more of a phased integration, it might have saved a lot of red ink.

Greyhounds had some interesting observations along these lines, noting how the SP saved money by keeping their passenger steam program.

I have always found pre-merger Nickle Platte interesting, and the fact that it seemed to compete well against diesle roads using the Berks was suggestive.  That having been said, I think the bridge-traffic disposition of the Nickle Platte made it easier to manage.  So maybe head-to-head competition shouldn't be a gauge.

I liked your observation though, and I am certainly hoping you and others would elaborate.

Gabe

[Murphy Siding]

Any Nickel Plate fans out there ?

Would it have been economically viable to run the Berks until the 1964 merger ?

Dale,

You obviously have an opinioin on this, please share.  I was hoping some would run with this.  I am interested in what someone with your knowledge thinks.

Gabe

Hi Gabe,

It is something I have thought about since that Steam vs Diesel thread but never delved into. I was thinking post-war 2-8-4s and 4-8-4s should have served out a 15 year term, as Michael noted, and the GP30 would have been a pretty good replacement for them. 

  While it's certainly easy to look back and second guess decisions others have made, something has always made me wonder about the steam to diesel transition.  As Michael pointed out in the other thread, one of the *mistakes*, if you will, that the railroads made, was in dieselizing too rapidly, sending a lot of steam engines to the scrapyard that hadn't paid for themselves yet, and still had a lot of good years left in them.  The point is well made, that diesels eliminated a lot of manpower having to do with all the coal/ashes etc...  It seems another factor was a coal strike(?) in about 1948(?), an a big rise in coal prices.  Perhaps the two events were related?  What would the economic picture of some road, such as the Nickel Plate, have been like, after converting all those newer steam locos over to oil, right after WW II ?  They could have then run them until the wheels fell off.

[nanaimo73]

 (1)  I am not sure I buy the "GP-30 would have been a good replacement" argument.  Had railroads not bought diesel as they did, would the GP-30 have come along as quickly as it did?  Also, the GP-9--in my humble view--was a much more successful locomotive than the GP-30.  Despite their more elderly disposition, I seem to see a lot more GP-9s and 10s around now days than GP-30s.  I don't know, maybe that was because there were more of them?

I was thinking pre-war power could have been replaced with GP9s, 1954-1960. Post-war steam replacement would be around the 1961-1963 GP30 era.    

[gabe]

 (1)  I am not sure I buy the "GP-30 would have been a good replacement" argument.  Had railroads not bought diesel as they did, would the GP-30 have come along as quickly as it did?  Also, the GP-9--in my humble view--was a much more successful locomotive than the GP-30.  Despite their more elderly disposition, I seem to see a lot more GP-9s and 10s around now days than GP-30s.  I don't know, maybe that was because there were more of them?

I was thinking pre-war power could have been replaced with GP9s, 1954-1960. Post-war steam replacement would be around the 1961-1963 GP30 era.    

Point taken.

Gabe

[Murphy Siding]

 (1)  I am not sure I buy the "GP-30 would have been a good replacement" argument.  Had railroads not bought diesel as they did, would the GP-30 have come along as quickly as it did?  Also, the GP-9--in my humble view--was a much more successful locomotive than the GP-30.  Despite their more elderly disposition, I seem to see a lot more GP-9s and 10s around now days than GP-30s.  I don't know, maybe that was because there were more of them?

I was thinking pre-war power could have been replaced with GP9s, 1954-1960. Post-war steam replacement would be around the 1961-1963 GP30 era.    

Point taken.

Gabe

  Post-war, oil-fired steam could have been replaced with SD40-2

[gabe]

 (1)  I am not sure I buy the "GP-30 would have been a good replacement" argument.  Had railroads not bought diesel as they did, would the GP-30 have come along as quickly as it did?  Also, the GP-9--in my humble view--was a much more successful locomotive than the GP-30.  Despite their more elderly disposition, I seem to see a lot more GP-9s and 10s around now days than GP-30s.  I don't know, maybe that was because there were more of them?

I was thinking pre-war power could have been replaced with GP9s, 1954-1960. Post-war steam replacement would be around the 1961-1963 GP30 era.    

Point taken.

Gabe

  Post-war, oil-fired steam could have been replaced with SD40-2

Heck, if gas prices continue to go the way they are going, the SD-40-2 might be replaced with post-war coal-fired steam . . . .

[MidlandPacific]

I think Michael may have made a few more converts than he realized!

Thanks for the PDF, Michael - I'm really looking forward to reading it.'

 

[Murphy Siding]

 (1)  I am not sure I buy the "GP-30 would have been a good replacement" argument.  Had railroads not bought diesel as they did, would the GP-30 have come along as quickly as it did?  Also, the GP-9--in my humble view--was a much more successful locomotive than the GP-30.  Despite their more elderly disposition, I seem to see a lot more GP-9s and 10s around now days than GP-30s.  I don't know, maybe that was because there were more of them?

I was thinking pre-war power could have been replaced with GP9s, 1954-1960. Post-war steam replacement would be around the 1961-1963 GP30 era.    

  If you stop and think about it, you just about described NW's transition from steam to diesel.

[nanaimo73]

  If you stop and think about it, you just about described NW's transition from steam to diesel.

I really don't think N&W did a good job with that. Buying the surplus C&O steam switchers was a good move, but then building their own copies during the early 1950s was a mistake. How long were they in service, 5 years ?

And then they rushed into dieselization, buying different models from different builders.

I would love to see an article in Trains covering that period on the N&W.

It is unfortunate that Old Timer/Ol' Ed hardly posts anymore, and the same with feltonhill.

[selector]

I would love a copy of that pdf - my email address is [e-mail].

I appreciate the link - I don't think I was a regular reader when it went up, but I have come across references to it from time to time (hence the somewhat apologetic request), and those sort of piqued my interest.  Thanks for exposing yourself to another barrage of the usual for my edification.

Same, please, Michael.  [e-mail]  Thank-you for taking the time.

-Crandell

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

  If you stop and think about it, you just about described NW's transition from steam to diesel.

I really don't think N&W did a good job with that. Buying the surplus C&O steam switchers was a good move, but then building their own copies during the early 1950s was a mistake. How long were they in service, 5 years ?

And then they rushed into dieselization, buying different models from different builders.

I would love to see an article in Trains covering that period on the N&W.

It is unfortunate that Old Timer/Ol' Ed hardly posts anymore, and the same with feltonhill.

N&W handled its dieselization with a surprisingly limited number of models, from Alco: T6, RS3 and RS11, from EMD: GP9 and GP18.  Compared to most roads, this is an incredible amount of standardization.  VGN did similarly well:  dieselizing with H16-44's and H24-66's.

[MichaelSol]

Venal?  I don't mean this in my usual sarcastic way, but that is way too interesting not to elaborate upon.  Please do tell.

Gabe

Well, take this example from the guy -- GP40-2 -- who, on an unrelated thread, claimed he was CSX management, and couldn't believe they hired csxengineer, because his spelling on the internet obviously showed he was stupid. Here was his contribution to the steam diesel thread: "... you are nothing but a foamer turd."

You can almost see the schoolyard bully with spit flying out of his mouth uttering the words.

Here was OldTimer's thoughtful assessment of steam vs diesel maintenance costs: "Your problem lies in the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between your perceived level of intelligence and your actual level."

Apparently he wasn't getting enough attention with his 25 or so posts complaining that the thread was a waste of his time, so he had to start sending personal love letters. You have to read the thread to see how obsessive his posts were that it was a waste of his time to read the thread -- which at one point was consisting primarily of his posts about how much time -- really-- he was forced to waste, against his will, to keep reading the thread. And then how he was forced to keep posting and wasting even more of his time to keep complaining about what a waste of his time it all was.

Venal? Read the thread. These were gentleman who had nothing "but" to offer. And the forum moderators cannot seem to establish a meaningful control on such individuals, and so over time, the real professionals disappear from the forums. Who needs it?

 

[gabe]

Venal?  I don't mean this in my usual sarcastic way, but that is way too interesting not to elaborate upon.  Please do tell.

Gabe

Well, take this example from the guy -- GP40-2 -- who, on an unrelated thread, claimed he was CSX management, and couldn't believe they hired csxengineer, because his spelling on the internet obviously showed he was stupid. Here was his contribution to the steam diesel thread: "... you are nothing but a foamer turd."

You can almost see the schoolyard bully with spit flying out of his mouth uttering the words.

Here was OldTimer's thoughtful assessment of steam vs diesel maintenance costs: "Your problem lies in the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between your perceived level of intelligence and your actual level."

Apparently he wasn't getting enough attention with his 25 or so posts complaining that the thread was a waste of his time, so he had to start sending personal love letters. You have to read the thread to see how obsessive his posts were that it was a waste of his time to read the thread -- which at one point was consisting primarily of his posts about how much time -- really-- he was forced to waste, against his will, to keep reading the thread. And then how he was forced to keep posting and wasting even more of his time to keep complaining about what a waste of his time it all was.

Venal? Read the thread. These were gentleman who had nothing "but" to offer. And the forum moderators cannot seem to establish a meaningful control on such individuals, and so over time, the real professionals disappear from the forums. Who needs it?

 

Oh, I was thinking venal in the sense of "subject to bribery or corrumpt influence."  If there was a way to receive a bribe by what I wrote on the forum, I wanted to get in on the action . . .

[gabe]

Over time, the real professionals disappear from the forums. Who needs it?

Surely you have thicker skin than that.

Gabe

[MichaelSol]

Over time, the real professionals disappear from the forums. Who needs it?

Surely you have thicker skin than that.

Gabe

Some do. Some don't. The concept of looking at the ICC reports, obtaining operating data, and using it to evaluate the success or failure of a motive power change ought to be a pretty straightforward exercise. But, so many of these threads degenerate into sheer name-calling -- and that thread was "Exhibit A" and the usual suspects made their usual appearances; bizarre, ad hominen attacks on H. F. Brown, professional engineers in general, "consultants," anything published in "obscure" engineering journals...

I took the time -- a weekend -- and did a survey of a Class I railroad that I had data for, and was surprised to see just how poorly dieselization actually did fare upon the econometric data by which it was supposed to represent success. It confirmed the Brown study in specific detail. I have since removed the charts and data from the thread. It was not a waste of my time to do the study -- but it was a waste of my time to share the information on Trains forums; as were the remainder of my efforts to cite directly to the most thorough study done on the economic effects of dieselization on U.S. railroads.

The breadth and intensity of personal attacks on that thread on anything that resembled a discussion of econometric data was breathtaking. Then there was the intervention by an individual who simply fabricated "all the studies" by which he held Brown personally deficient for not addressing and against which Brown's study had to be measured. And you will note after about five pages of asking for the specific studies -- oops, he had none. Made them all up! He'd never seen a one. It was the classic appearance of a troll -- fabricating information merely to create an argument.

But, there was no accountability by forum moderators for posting knowingly false information. I guess that's OK. Well, I do have better things to do with studies and research. I know several current and retired RR executives who have come and gone from these forums for the same reasons. There is simply nothing to be gained by participating in discussions in which there are simply no rules whatsoever -- where an outright lie is given the same degree of consideration as a statistical truth.

 

[gabe]

Over time, the real professionals disappear from the forums. Who needs it?

Surely you have thicker skin than that.

Gabe

Some do. Some don't. The concept of looking at the ICC reports, obtaining operating data, and using it to evaluate the success or failure of a motive power change ought to be a pretty straightforward exercise. But, so many of these threads degenerate into sheer name-calling -- and that thread was "Exhibit A" and the usual suspects made their usual appearances; bizarre, ad hominen attacks on H. F. Brown, professional engineers in general, "consultants," anything published in "obscure" engineering journals...

I took the time -- a weekend -- and did a survey of a Class I railroad that I had data for, and was surprised to see just how poorly dieselization actually did fare upon the econometric data by which it was supposed to represent success. It confirmed the Brown study in specific detail. I have since removed the charts and data from the thread. It was not a waste of my time to do the study -- but it was a waste of my time to share the information on Trains forums; as were the remainder of my efforts to cite directly to the most thorough study done on the economic effects of dieselization on U.S. railroads.

The breadth and intensity of personal attacks on that thread on anything that resembled a discussion of econometric data was breathtaking. Then there was the intervention by an individual who simply fabricated "all the studies" by which he held Brown personally deficient for not addressing and against which Brown's study had to be measured. And you will note after about five pages of asking for the specific studies -- oops, he had none. Made them all up! He'd never seen a one. It was the classic appearance of a troll -- fabricating information merely to create an argument.

But, there was no accountability by forum moderators for posting knowingly false information. I guess that's OK. Well, I do have better things to do with studies and research. I know several current and retired RR executives who have come and gone from these forums for the same reasons. There is simply nothing to be gained by participating in discussions in which there are simply no rules whatsoever -- where an outright lie is given the same degree of consideration as a statistical truth.

 

I don't know what disappoints me more: my now defunct expectation that bribery is not available on the forum or the fact that an obviously-accomplished attorney and industry leaders would cease posting simply because of a little flack.

I think there is always hostility toward such studies as the one you removed--it is kind of up there with lies, darn lies, and statistics.  Anyone who knows how to create them can use them tendentiously.  Since it takes as long to understand such a study as it does to create it, I think such hostility is natural.  But, right or wrong, that is the nature of the beast.

I really don't think that is a good reason for pulling the study or not participating in the forum.  If industry insiders cannot take the relatively benign flack on here, how on earth do they deal with union negotiation, customer complaints, etc?

Probably to the disdain of others, I have always kind of liked the flack on here--it is the real world.  Some people agree with you, you grow to like them and consider them friends.  Some people disagree with you, but in a respectful matter, you grow to respect their opinion and listen to what they say, and some people are just mean about it--but that can be fun too.

Well, I am preaching in a rather facile manner . . . . in any event, as someone noted above, right or wrong, I think your study made more of an impression than you give it credit for, and I wish you had not pulled it.

Gabe

[MidlandPacific]

It really is dispiriting to read some of that stuff.  I'm sure you know, though, that there are a lot of people on this forum who really are interested in what you have to say. 

BTW, just in case you weren't feeling abused enough the last time it came up, I just started another Buffett thread - turns out the other two railroads he bought into were Norfolk Southern and UP (it's here). 

[Murphy Siding]

  If you stop and think about it, you just about described NW's transition from steam to diesel.

I really don't think N&W did a good job with that. Buying the surplus C&O steam switchers was a good move, but then building their own copies during the early 1950s was a mistake. How long were they in service, 5 years ?

And then they rushed into dieselization, buying different models from different builders.

I would love to see an article in Trains covering that period on the N&W.

It is unfortunate that Old Timer/Ol' Ed hardly posts anymore, and the same with feltonhill.

N&W handled its dieselization with a surprisingly limited number of models, from Alco: T6, RS3 and RS11, from EMD: GP9 and GP18.  Compared to most roads, this is an incredible amount of standardization.  VGN did similarly well:  dieselizing with H16-44's and H24-66's.

  I thought the same thing, recalling that N&W jumped right into GP7's or 9's for their first diesels.  Wasn't N&W famous for their *modern* late steam locomotives?

[GP40-2]

Well Michael Sol, I can't believe your singled me out as a special mention from that old thread...your must really love me after all.

Gabe: The real reason why many of us who work in the industry (unlike Mr. Sol) stop posting here is because the same threads and same railfan misconceptions just keep coming back over and over and over.  We get tired of repeating ourselves every two weeks on the same subjects. It is amazing how so few people here have no clue what the search function is for. They will ask a question that was answered 2 weeks ago, then the usual suspects will chime in with their version of the "answer" (which they either made up after a drug and booze binge, or found on a model railroad forum), then collectively they will dismiss any input from real railroaders, because the truth seldom represents what railfans think a railroad should be.

BTW, most of you clowns here will be happy to know that I'm off to retirementville from CSX as of July 15th. I got a six figure per year offer from a related industry concerning new locomotive design that was too good to pass up, and I ain't going to be wasting my time posting here. I'm sure you all will really miss me.

[Anonymous]

Well Michael Sol, I can't believe your singled me out as a special mention from that old thread...your must really love me after all.

Gabe: The real reason why many of us who work in the industry (unlike Mr. Sol) stop posting here is because the same threads and same railfan misconceptions just keep coming back over and over and over.  We get tired of repeating ourselves every two weeks on the same subjects. It is amazing how so few people here have no clue what the search function is for. They will ask a question that was answered 2 weeks ago, then the usual suspects will chime in with their version of the "answer" (which they either made up after a drug and booze binge, or found on a model railroad forum), then collectively they will dismiss any input from real railroaders, because the truth seldom represents what railfans think a railroad should be.

BTW, most of you clowns here will be happy to know that I'm off to retirementville from CSX as of July 15th. I got a six figure per year offer from a related industry concerning new locomotive design that was too good to pass up, and I ain't going to be wasting my time posting here. I'm sure you all will really miss me.

What is it that LC always foams up?.......

Oh yeah,.........

FOLMAO!

[snagletooth]

Sol, GP40-2, Murph, Gabe, Nana, CSSHeg! OH BOY!  You know it's gonna get good Don't go away guys, I gotta get a beer and pizza. I don't want to miss another thread with you guys go off the rails, again. I just love a good train wreck.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

To Murphy Siding, N&W was indeed well known more its modern steam locomotives and even more importantly, its modern refurbishing and maintenance practices.  N&W virtually "dieselized" its repair and refueling operations to lessen the turnaround times of its steam locomotives.  N&W wanted to stay with steam but since it was becoming virtually the only major steam operation in the country, finding suppliers of parts for its power was becoming difficult to impossible, driving up operating expenses as a result.  Diesels started looking better because steam was becoming an oddball, among other things.  By analogy, Modesto & Empire Traction likes its 70-tonners, but it is getting harder to maintain them properly because of their age and unavailability of parts.

[gabe]

Well Michael Sol, I can't believe your singled me out as a special mention from that old thread...your must really love me after all.

Gabe: The real reason why many of us who work in the industry (unlike Mr. Sol) stop posting here is because the same threads and same railfan misconceptions just keep coming back over and over and over.  We get tired of repeating ourselves every two weeks on the same subjects. It is amazing how so few people here have no clue what the search function is for. They will ask a question that was answered 2 weeks ago, then the usual suspects will chime in with their version of the "answer" (which they either made up after a drug and booze binge, or found on a model railroad forum), then collectively they will dismiss any input from real railroaders, because the truth seldom represents what railfans think a railroad should be.

BTW, most of you clowns here will be happy to know that I'm off to retirementville from CSX as of July 15th. I got a six figure per year offer from a related industry concerning new locomotive design that was too good to pass up, and I ain't going to be wasting my time posting here. I'm sure you all will really miss me.

I have always enjoyed your posts in the past, but stating how much you make as you diss the forum is a new forum low.

Gabe