Diesel versus Steam

[MichaelSol]

I was looking at the comment for it's face value.  It seemed to purport that eleven diesels could do what 30 steamers did.  Could there be more?  No doubt, but I'm not a rivet-counter/picker-of-the-nits.  I was thinking in terms of less infrastructure needed to run diesel vs. steam and also of the amount of crews required to run multiple unit diesels vs multiple steamers elephant style.

Diesels replacing steam on a 1 to 3 ratio was certainly not uncommon. 

In 1955 the C&IM dieselized.  They replaced 30 steam locomotives (mostly 2-10-2s) with just 11 diesels, six SW1200s and five SD9s.  The 1200s were M.U. equiped and were used as road power.

My earlier assessment of the amount of tractive effort available to the railroad, taken from Wikipedia, was quite wrong. Interestingly, it led to some curious explanations set forth above to justify what was, in fact, erroneous information. No more Wikipedia.

As I suspected, however, "there is more to the story."

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].

The C&IM was utilizing 364 lbs of tractive effort for each million ton miles of freight with steam power, but needed 434 lbs of tractive effort for each million ton miles of freight with dieselization. I doubt that the C&IM was running any racehorses, but this would be consistent with the drop off in tractive effort suffered by the Diesel-electric at speeds over 20 mph and if the railroad was trying to maintain some kind of a consistent average running speed over that threshold, it would have needed to buy more Diesel Electric tractive effort capacity in order to be able to do so.

So rather than diesel replacing steam on a 1:3 basis as alleged above, the actual ratio in this case was 1:0.8 -- not favorable at all. And, this does not account for the age of the steam power -- and the fact that the "ratings" of the older equipment were no doubt considerably diminished by age and wear -- compared to the diesels which had to be operating close to their rated capacity. Nor does this ratio account for the alleged availability factors of each type of motive power -- on that basis, the figures looke even more negative for dieselization.

Based on diesel availability of 90% (they never came close) and steam availability of 60%, the C&IM had to purchase 2 units of diesel tractive effort for every available steam unit of tractive effort it replaced. Somebody needs to look at why this was happening on this particular railroad.

The lower diesel efficiency in terms of doing its fundamental job -- moving freight -- is interesting given the strength of the belief system contained in the original presentation on the matter. It may simply be due to diseconomies of scale. But the record does show that the railroad had to buy more tractive effort to move the same freight when it converted to diesels.  I have to admit, this is a surprise to me. There is something more to the story. It is not an example of increased efficiency due to dieselization as the original poster attempted to argue.

 

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
I don't know about the railroads in question, but the Georgia Railroad bought a few diesels and ran them to death in an effort to lower the costs of locomotion. Bob Hansen wrote a fine book on the railroad. Seems like they were buying new ones about the same time they got rid of the last steamers. I got to see my only steam engine in revenue service when my mom walked and I toddled beside her to a little grocery store across the street from the old Pullman plant at the outside of the Georgia Railroad yard. That had to have been in 1950 and I remember that there were three diesels there.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

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.

[nanaimo73]

....This continuation of expressing "facts and figures" proving the steam engine usage was better for the railroad, financially, and what ever other ways just screams of "why not change something to correct our mistake"....That was done 50 years ago...! {steam to diesel}....Wouldn't there be a corrective solution by now if that long ago decision was a big financial mistake....!

Brown does say the railroads should have replaced yard power with diesels, the economics were different with road power. It would seem logical to me if the railroads had replaced steam at a slower rate. A large number of the steam locomotives could have run until 1954 when the GP9 became available.

The Milwaukee Road dieselized with dozens of models from 7 builders. They should have bought Alco S2 yard power 1940-1945, then EMD passenger units 1945-1950, and then EMD road freight power. I'm guessing they could have cut their costs in half.  

[MidlandPacific]

That's why I said, "nobody's trying to put the beer back into the bottle."  Look, it might be the case that it was a sub-optimal decision, but sometimes you just live with the results.  It's simply not possible to bring back the steam locomotive today - the environmental regulations governing spillage of lubricants and emissions alone would kill it. 

[Modelcar]

....This continuation of expressing "facts and figures" proving the steam engine usage was better for the railroad, financially, and what ever other ways just screams of "why not change something to correct our mistake"....That was done 50 years ago...! {steam to diesel}....Wouldn't there be a corrective solution by now if that long ago decision was a big financial mistake....!

[MidlandPacific]

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. 

[CNW 6000]

After reading that it then seems to me that the RR needed 30 locos to have enough available to keep their trains moving.  Based on that theory then replacing 30 steamers with 11 diesels would make sense.

[JonathanS]

I was looking at the comment for it's face value.  It seemed to purport that eleven diesels could do what 30 steamers did.  Could there be more?  No doubt, but I'm not a rivet-counter/picker-of-the-nits.  I was thinking in terms of less infrastructure needed to run diesel vs. steam and also of the amount of crews required to run multiple unit diesels vs multiple steamers elephant style.

Diesels replacing steam on a 1 to 3 ratio was certainly not uncommon.  The Reading Company Technical & Historical Society published part of a study the Reading did on its early diesel switcher assignments.  The four builders EMC, ALCO, Baldwin, and St. Louis (a non opposed piston Fairbanks Morse) were compared against each other and against steam for availablility, operating costs per hour and maintenance costs per hour.  Except for the very oddball St. Louis the diesel combined operating and maintenance costs were around $1.00 per hour.  I do not remember the exact steam cost cited but it was multiple times the cost of the diesels.  Also the diesel switchers in the study replaced steam on a 1 diesel for 3 steam switchers.  The diesel availabilities, except for the St. Louis, were over 90% while the steam switcher availability was around 25%.

Your infrastructure comment is also well taken.  Again from the Reading, the Catawissa branch was dieselized with F3s and FA1s.  This permitted the elimination of two helper districts and entirely eliminated the roundhouse etc. and all the associated costs for the north slope helpers.  So even with more expensive locomotives the overall costs were significantly reduced.  This study was also published by the RCT&HS.  

[CNW 6000]

Is it so far fetched an idea that the railroad had these steamers in service where they'd be 'overkill'?  Something akin to using a -9W or SD70MAC as a yard switcher?

[Kevin C. Smith]

Michael-

I'm not too versed in a lot of engineering, and statistics can give me a headache, but I'm willing to give this a try. Could I get a copy of the study?
[e-mail]

The more this subject gets discussed the more interesting it gets. Please do keep up the good work bringing these things to light; I find it facinating.

[MichaelSol]

Pretty good locomotive utilization for what?

Wise and efficient, how?

They replaced 2.6 million lbs of tractive effort from 35-40 year old machines with 659,000 of tractive effort from brand new machines.

Sounds to me like they simply retired a lot of unused tractive effort.

Perhaps from a era when they were hauling 2-3 times the tonnage? Did the diesel TE really replace the steam TE, or was the steam TE mostly in storage? I suspect that there is more to the story here, a lot more ...

Interestingly, if the story had been reversed -- there would have been no diesels to replace -- as a fleet they wouldn't have lasted that long.

What were the actual economic results?

Oh those steamers weren't built in 1915.  Is there no end to your bombast and exaggerations?

If you will reference page 53 of "Steam's Finiest Hour", edited by David P. Morgan, you will see C&IM #700.  She's a 2-10-2 built by Lima in 1931.  That would make her 24 years young at retirement.  Now just why would a railroad do that?  Must have been a reason!  Diesels more economical that steam? 

The steam engines selected by Morgan for the book are his pick of "The Best"  After all, the title is "Steam's Finest Hour".

In contrast, and in response, to your bombast that ""if the story had been reversed -- there would have been no diesels to replace -- as a fleet they wouldn't have lasted that long." I specifically refer anyone reading this to the photo on page 40 of the June 2007 issue of Trains.

That's Illinois & Midland (former C&IM) #30.  The diesel was built by General Motors in 1960 and is still serving my home town of Manito, IL located in that beatiful central Illinois farm country.

So the diesel has served 47 years and the steam engine only served 24.  The diesel has lasted almost twice as long as the steam.  (and how many SD40-2 are still working today?)  But you say "if the story had been reversed -- there would have been no diesels to replace -- as a fleet they wouldn't have lasted that long. "

Well, who is wrong here?  You or the photograph? 

And no, the guys running the C&IM weren't stupid.  They needed 30 steam locomotives to run the railroad - they didn't shove 'em out back and forget about 'em.  Commonwealth Edison would have had their heads for that.

Then it bought nine more diesels from GM, sent one steam engine to a museum, and scrapped the rest.  They replaced 30 active, hot, steam engines with 11 diesels. 

... 

Live with it.

Wow, I don't even know where to start. Comparing a single diesel on another railroad [how many rebuilds? How many locomotive miles?] with some big heavy steam, from yet a different railroad -- most of which (2-10-2's) was built before 1920, and generating a conclusion is certainly an interesting approach -- especially when not a single dollar number appears.

Now, I don't know anything about steam. You offer that you do. The information I looked up said most of this model were built before 1920. Don't know how a different specific engine on a different railroad that you found in a picture in book really compares. Was it the last of its kind, or was it representative of the railroad you actually described?

The info I had was this: "In North America, the 2-10-2 was a type produced between approximately 1914-1920, after which its limitations became apparent and larger locomotives were built. Approximately 2,200 of the type were produced, including about 500 of the USRA WWI standard design." Right or wrong? Don't know. Never built one.

Is there any information on the engines you actually referred to available? Or is the picture in your book, from -- again -- a different railroad, your data source?

"Live with it." I have no doubt it happened. I do doubt that the railroad suddenly went from needing 2.5 million lbs of tractive effort to just over half a million. That's why we use measurements -- they can be compared. Something doesn't work here because a lb of tractive effort doesn't care how it is generated -- it is still a lb of tractive effort whether a diesel electric produces it or a steam engine produces it.

It is a measurement, not an ideology.

You are suggesting that a pound of tractive effort generated by a diesel electric is the equivalent of 4 or more lbs of tractive effort generated by a steam engine. If that is true, no wonder things worked out the way they did. They changed the laws of physics and that would, indeed, change everything.

However, let me suggest that a pound of tractive effort is equal to a pound of tractive effort. That is the basis for my question.

You offer conclusions. I have no doubt in some instances they might be true.

But, I would like to see the numbers anyway.

[greyhounds]

Pretty good locomotive utilization for what?

Wise and efficient, how?

They replaced 2.6 million lbs of tractive effort from 35-40 year old machines with 659,000 of tractive effort from brand new machines.

Sounds to me like they simply retired a lot of unused tractive effort.

Perhaps from a era when they were hauling 2-3 times the tonnage? Did the diesel TE really replace the steam TE, or was the steam TE mostly in storage? I suspect that there is more to the story here, a lot more ...

Interestingly, if the story had been reversed -- there would have been no diesels to replace -- as a fleet they wouldn't have lasted that long.

What were the actual economic results?

Oh those steamers weren't built in 1915.  Is there no end to your bombast and exaggerations?

If you will reference page 53 of "Steam's Finiest Hour", edited by David P. Morgan, you will see C&IM #700.  She's a 2-10-2 built by Lima in 1931.  That would make her 24 years young at retirement.  Now just why would a railroad do that?  Must have been a reason!  Diesels more economical that steam? 

The steam engines selected by Morgan for the book are his pick of "The Best"  After all, the title is "Steam's Finest Hour".

In contrast, and in response, to your bombast that ""if the story had been reversed -- there would have been no diesels to replace -- as a fleet they wouldn't have lasted that long." I specifically refer anyone reading this to the photo on page 40 of the June 2007 issue of Trains.

That's Illinois & Midland (former C&IM) #30.  The diesel was built by General Motors in 1960 and is still serving my home town of Manito, IL located in that beautiful central Illinois farm country.

So the diesel has served 47 years and the steam engine only served 24.  The diesel has lasted almost twice as long as the steam.  (and how many SD40-2 are still working today?)  But you say "if the story had been reversed -- there would have been no diesels to replace -- as a fleet they wouldn't have lasted that long. "

Well, who is wrong here?  You or the photograph? 

And no, the guys running the C&IM weren't stupid.  They needed 30 steam locomotives to run the railroad - they didn't shove 'em out back and forget about 'em.  Commonwealth Edison would have had their heads for that.

In 1954-1955 the C&IM was a railroad that lived by hauling coal mined on line.  It could have purchased virtually any type of "modern" steam locomotive at scrap value.  It prudently evaluated the diesel.  It took two deomonstrators from GM and checked their performance.  Then it acquired two SW1200s and evaluated their performance and maintenance reqirements. 

Then it bought nine more diesels from GM, sent one steam engine to a museum, and scrapped the rest.  They replaced 30 active, hot, steam engines with 11 diesels. 

They had to go back to GM for those two RS1325s and two SD18s when a second Taylorville-Havana turn was added in the early 1960's.  Chicago needed more electricity.  By then they could have had their pick of N&W Y6-b's at scrap value.  But the diesels were more economical to operate.  So they bought SD18s.

Live with it.  

[MichaelSol]

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.

 

[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

[CNW 6000]

I was looking at the comment for it's face value.  It seemed to purport that eleven diesels could do what 30 steamers did.  Could there be more?  No doubt, but I'm not a rivet-counter/picker-of-the-nits.  I was thinking in terms of less infrastructure needed to run diesel vs. steam and also of the amount of crews required to run multiple unit diesels vs multiple steamers elephant style.

[MichaelSol]

Just as information ---

In 1955 the C&IM dieselized.  They replaced 30 steam locomotives (mostly 2-10-2s) with just 11 diesels, six SW1200s and five SD9s.  The 1200s were M.U. equiped and were used as road power.

Their operating pattern after dieselization was to assign one 1200 as a yard engine at Pekin, Havana, Springfield and at the mine near Taylorville.  The left just seven diesels for the road.  With just these seven they operated two Springfied-Peoria turns a day, one Taylorville-Havana turn and one Taylorville - Athens, IL turn which positioned coal for the Peoria trains to pick up.

That's pretty good locomotive utilization. The were owned by Commonwealth Edison (Chicago's power company) and I don't think they wasted their money buying diesels that wouldn't pay off.

That does sound like a wise and efficient use of motive power.  Getting 11 diesels to do what 30 steamers did (if I read the above correctly-oops if I didn't!) is incredible.  What might it take for one class one today to run what it does, but with steam?

Pretty good locomotive utilization for what?

Wise and efficient, how?

They replaced 2.6 million lbs of tractive effort from 35-40 year old machines with 659,000 of tractive effort from brand new machines.

Sounds to me like they simply retired a lot of unused tractive effort.

Perhaps from an era when they were hauling 2-3 times the tonnage? Did the diesel TE really replace the steam TE, or was the steam TE mostly in storage? I suspect that there is more to the story here, a lot more ...

Interestingly, if the story had been reversed -- there would have been no diesels to replace -- as a fleet they wouldn't have lasted that long.

What were the actual economic results?

 

[CNW 6000]

Just as information ---

In 1955 the C&IM dieselized.  They replaced 30 steam locomotives (mostly 2-10-2s) with just 11 diesels, six SW1200s and five SD9s.  The 1200s were M.U. equiped and were used as road power.

Their operating pattern after dieselization was to assign one 1200 as a yard engine at Pekin, Havana, Springfield and at the mine near Taylorville.  The left just seven diesels for the road.  With just these seven they operated two Springfied-Peoria turns a day, one Taylorville-Havana turn and one Taylorville - Athens, IL turn which positioned coal for the Peoria trains to pick up.

That's pretty good locomotive utilization. The were owned by Commonwealth Edison (Chicago's power company) and I don't think they wasted their money buying diesels that wouldn't pay off.

 

That does sound like a wise and efficient use of motive power.  Getting 11 diesels to do what 30 steamers did (if I read the above correctly-oops if I didn't!) is incredible.  What might it take for one class one today to run what it does, but with steam?

[MichaelSol]

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.

[TomDiehl]

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.

What I "found interesting in the last thread" was the opportunity to simply quote you, at every turn, contradicting yourself by the passive expedient of simply setting your comments side-by-side including your absurd allegation, after several specific citations to it, that the Brown study had never been published at all followed by your bizarre denial that you had ever said anything such thing.

I know, I know ... what you must have meant was that it had never been published in a rail fan magazine that had been delivered to your doorstep so that you could read it ... because a railfan magazine is where anyone would ordinarily look to find a sophisticated engineering analysis ... rather than, oh, for instance ... one of the best known engineering journals of its time which was routinely in the habit and has been for well more than a century, of publishing engineering studies, all of which instantly became "obscure" by the simple fact of their publication to the general worldwide engineering community rather than to the railfan community whose source of engineering knowledge comes solely and quite presumptuously according to you from Railfan and Railroad magazine.

And here we are again, with your standard allegation that a detailed engineering study, published in a well-known engineering journal is "obscure" because of your insistence that if you haven't read it, it is presumptively obscure.

Now, what is it you actually seek to bring to this thread that you did not already contribute, by a systematic and intentional misrepresentation of the existence and conclusions of "all the studies" that you alleged existed in page after page of that thread, and which you then conceded when placed fairly but directly on the spot, you had never, in fact, seen at all and had fabricated their supposed findings solely for the purpose of creating a purely antagonistic thread to satisfy your personal agenda?

 

 

Tom, if you have your doubts about the veracity of the study, I urge you to contact Michael.  He provided one for me on request, and will, I am sure, do the same for you.  You can read it.  There are at least two other regular contributors who have obtained it.  Since the study has been widely disseminated, we can have an open and frank discussion about the contents.

Well Midland, judging by Michael's comments in other entries above, that request seems like it would be a waste of effort. 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.

However Michael, if I'm wrong about that, my email is

[Krazykat112079]

I thought this horse was dead. Why do we keep beating it? Steam is a lot of fun, but geez....

For the folks who make the money decisions, i.e. the railroads, the horse died 50 years ago.

Enjoy

Paul 

With all this beating and 50 years time, you'd think there wasn't anything left to beat, but a pile of powder.

[IRONROOSTER]

I thought this horse was dead. Why do we keep beating it? Steam is a lot of fun, but geez....

For the folks who make the money decisions, i.e. the railroads, the horse died 50 years ago.

Enjoy

Paul 

[MichaelSol]

In the last thread, you could have cited the reference a thousand times. When I asked where it could actually be found, you made a vague reference to to travelling out to the engineering library at Penn State University to find out if they had a copy of it. Since I wasn't willing to make a four hour journey (each way) on the outside chance they may have it AND let a non-engineering student see a copy of it, your convoluted logic reasoned that it was because I "didn't like to drive." An eight hour drive for a wild goose chase? I guess maybe I don't like to drive that much. Not exactly a "library near me."

The line above I find the most humorous is the statement that the study "widely disseminated." The first place there was an actual offer to see a copy of the study was a couple pages ago on this thread. There was never an offer on the other thread.

What I said on 1/02 was this:

Originally posted by Michael Sol: Oh gosh, I have always assumed it was available through ILL. I have a copy, "somewhere," and if I can locate it, I'll make it available.

But, on 1/23 you stated:

Originally posted by TomDiehl: More accurately, what I DID suggest is that the Brown study makes no authoritative mention as to why they changed over to the diesel as quickly as they did. There's no indication that he interviewed any railroad executives that made these decisions, only used his own criteria to evaluate the situation.

So, aha! You had read the Brown study because you knew, you said, what he had left out according to your views of what was necessary!

But, no, that turned out to be yet another false representation as well:

1/23 Originally posted by TomDiehl: No I wouldn't waste the time reading such drivel from Brown.

So, you see, it really didn't matter if the study was made available, or located at Penn State -- which I looked up for you -- or on ILL. It was at an engineering school. I'll bet you didn't even bother to call to save the drive to see if they would photocopy it for you, did you? Why would you? You wouldn't waste your time "reading such drivel" -- even after you tried to imply you already had. You were never in it for an honest discussion of anything. You were trolling then, and you are trolling now.

This thread is going exactly the same way as that thread: inartful evasions and misrepresentations on your part. Why the moderator lets you do this stuff, thread after thread, is something I have never seen on any other internet forum.

The fact is, you never asked, you never made an effort, I indicated that if I located it I would make it available, I thereupon found it and quoted extensively from it. Based no doubt upon my specific offer in that thread of making it available, several people subsequently then in fact asked for copies. 

You weren't one of them.

 And you had already stated you would refuse to read it.

 

[MarknLisa]

I thought this horse was dead. Why do we keep beating it? Steam is a lot of fun, but geez....

[TomDiehl]

  Since the study has been widely disseminated, we can have an open and frank discussion about the contents.

It was never about the study. Look at that old thread. I must have provided the citation at least three times. Well, it wasn 't to any rail fan mag. I then located a library, for him, near to him that had the journal and I publicly posted that information for him.

That wasn't good enough. He complained he would have to drive and it wasn't worth it. Diel announced that Brown "was a loser." I found that incredibly offensive from a railfan about an authentic railroad professional.

He never did simply ask for a copy. That just wasn't his point -- never was. Otherwise he wouldn't have fabricated a plethora of "all the studies" which he asserted as showing results absolutely contrary to Brown. Every single one.

Why read an actual study when you can just make up a bunch of them and they all show exactly what you want them to say? And no one can challenge you on them because they aren't published. They didn't even exist. How's that for an exclusive source?

Subsequent to that discussion, I needed a new copy of the Brown article as mine was missing a couple of review comments. The entire original volume of publication arrived in three days via Interlibrary Loan and I was able to photocopy what I needed.

Three days.

Indeed, Diehl mentions that "one other forum member found a copy of it ...". Guess how?

He asked me.

If Diehl had wanted it, it was easily available. But, that just wasn't his point ... these threads never are. And it isn't now.

 

In the last thread, you could have cited the reference a thousand times. When I asked where it could actually be found, you made a vague reference to to travelling out to the engineering library at Penn State University to find out if they had a copy of it. Since I wasn't willing to make a four hour journey (each way) on the outside chance they may have it AND let a non-engineering student see a copy of it, your convoluted logic reasoned that it was because I "didn't like to drive." An eight hour drive for a wild goose chase? I guess maybe I don't like to drive that much. Not exactly a "library near me."

The line above I find the most humorous is the statement that the study "widely disseminated." The first place there was an actual offer to see a copy of the study was a couple pages ago on this thread. There was never an offer on the other thread.

[greyhounds]

Just as information ---

In 1955 the C&IM dieselized.  They replaced 30 steam locomotives (mostly 2-10-2s) with just 11 diesels, six SW1200s and five SD9s.  The 1200s were M.U. equiped and were used as road power.

Their operating pattern after dieselization was to assign one 1200 as a yard engine at Pekin, Havana, Springfield and at the mine near Taylorville.  The left just seven diesels for the road.  With just these seven they operated two Springfied-Peoria turns a day, one Taylorville-Havana turn and one Taylorville - Athens, IL turn which positioned coal for the Peoria trains to pick up.

That's pretty good locomotive utilization. The were owned by Commonwealth Edison (Chicago's power company) and I don't think they wasted their money buying diesels that wouldn't pay off.

 

[MichaelSol]

  Since the study has been widely disseminated, we can have an open and frank discussion about the contents.

It was never about the study. Look at that old thread. I must have provided the citation at least three times. Well, it wasn 't to any rail fan mag. I then located a library, for him, near to him that had the journal and I publicly posted that information for him.

That wasn't good enough. He complained he would have to drive and it wasn't worth it. Diel announced that Brown "was a loser." I found that incredibly offensive from a railfan about an authentic railroad professional.

He never did simply ask for a copy. That just wasn't his point -- never was. Otherwise he wouldn't have fabricated a plethora of "all the studies" which he asserted as showing results absolutely contrary to Brown. Every single one.

Why read an actual study when you can just make up a bunch of them and they all show exactly what you want them to say? And no one can challenge you on them because they aren't published. They didn't even exist. How's that for an exclusive source?

Subsequent to that discussion, I needed a new copy of the Brown article as mine was missing a couple of review comments. The entire original volume of publication arrived in three days via Interlibrary Loan and I was able to photocopy what I needed.

Three days.

Indeed, Diehl mentions that "one other forum member found a copy of it ...". Guess how?

He asked me.

If Diehl had wanted it, it was easily available. But, that just wasn't his point ... these threads never are. And it isn't now.

 

[MidlandPacific]

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.

What I "found interesting in the last thread" was the opportunity to simply quote you, at every turn, contradicting yourself by the passive expedient of simply setting your comments side-by-side including your absurd allegation, after several specific citations to it, that the Brown study had never been published at all followed by your bizarre denial that you had ever said anything such thing.

I know, I know ... what you must have meant was that it had never been published in a rail fan magazine that had been delivered to your doorstep so that you could read it ... because a railfan magazine is where anyone would ordinarily look to find a sophisticated engineering analysis ... rather than, oh, for instance ... one of the best known engineering journals of its time which was routinely in the habit and has been for well more than a century, of publishing engineering studies, all of which instantly became "obscure" by the simple fact of their publication to the general worldwide engineering community rather than to the railfan community whose source of engineering knowledge comes solely and quite presumptuously according to you from Railfan and Railroad magazine.

And here we are again, with your standard allegation that a detailed engineering study, published in a well-known engineering journal is "obscure" because of your insistence that if you haven't read it, it is presumptively obscure.

Now, what is it you actually seek to bring to this thread that you did not already contribute, by a systematic and intentional misrepresentation of the existence and conclusions of "all the studies" that you alleged existed in page after page of that thread, and which you then conceded when placed fairly but directly on the spot, you had never, in fact, seen at all and had fabricated their supposed findings solely for the purpose of creating a purely antagonistic thread to satisfy your personal agenda?

 

 

Tom, if you have your doubts about the veracity of the study, I urge you to contact Michael.  He provided one for me on request, and will, I am sure, do the same for you.  You can read it.  There are at least two other regular contributors who have obtained it.  Since the study has been widely disseminated, we can have an open and frank discussion about the contents.

[MichaelSol]

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.

What I "found interesting in the last thread" was the opportunity to simply quote you, at every turn, contradicting yourself by the passive expedient of simply setting your comments side-by-side including your absurd allegation, after several specific citations to it, that the Brown study had never been published at all followed by your bizarre denial that you had ever said anything such thing.

I know, I know ... what you must have meant was that it had never been published in a rail fan magazine that had been delivered to your doorstep so that you could read it ... because a railfan magazine is where anyone would ordinarily look to find a sophisticated engineering analysis ... rather than, oh, for instance ... one of the best known engineering journals of its time which was routinely in the habit and has been for well more than a century, of publishing engineering studies, all of which instantly became "obscure" by the simple fact of their publication to the general worldwide engineering community rather than to the railfan community whose source of engineering knowledge comes solely and quite presumptuously according to you from Railfan and Railroad magazine.

And here we are again, with your standard allegation that a detailed engineering study, published in a well-known engineering journal is "obscure" because of your insistence that if you haven't read it, it is presumptively obscure.

Now, what is it you actually seek to bring to this thread that you did not already contribute, by a systematic and intentional misrepresentation of the existence and conclusions of "all the studies" that you alleged existed in page after page of that thread, and which you then conceded when placed fairly but directly on the spot, you had never, in fact, seen at all and had fabricated their supposed findings solely for the purpose of creating a purely antagonistic thread to satisfy your personal agenda?

 

 

[nanaimo73]

Other factors that weren't even mentioned that should be taken into account: during WW2, defered maintenance and equipment replacement was commonplace due to restrictions by the War Production Board. How much of this equipment maintenance and replacement cost (with associated finance charges) were "catch up" for the war years?

In the event you ever actually take the time to read the study ... you will note that Brown was careful to evaluate the cost of equivalent operation, including replacement and maintenance. This was the important "control" necessary in any statistical study as it removed any debate about causation effect on outcomes.  

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.

Tom, why don't you ask Michael for a copy ?