Hey Kenny. If it helps, that is what I thought you meant when I read it.
Overmod kenny dorham All else equal (as much as that is possible) was it cheaper to pull freight cars with a coal powered engine than it was with an oil burner.? This is one of the timeless topics in steam-enthusiast organizations, and there are a few studies that somewhat carefully include and reject costs to 'prove' one or the other. In the 'good old days' when both steam locomotives and all their auxiliaries and components were essentially costed-down and cheap relative to diesel-electrics, the first cost of the diesel could be wildly greater than a modern 4-8-4 or modernized 2-8-8-2 (I use those three advisedly). This in fact was the primary reason Baldwin abandoned the Essl locomotive ... it couldn't be sold by them cost-effectively at the time. Likewise, the cost of coal at the time was radically lower than heavy oil in most places, especially for crappy or low-rank mine-run stuff from either low bidders or railroad-owned mines. So even net of ash-handling and other concerns the fuel bill might be lower for steam than for the engineered fuel used in diesels. The big thing that made steam competitive was cheap but loyal labor. All the careful modernization of maintenance at a NYC or N&W could not reduce the relatively large expense of a water infrastructure (that on modern power needed to be cleaned and chemically treated), and the relatively large amount of servicing stuff that a steam locomotive requires. You frequently see the Kiefer study (published in 1947) quoted. This famously established that a really good modern engine could be cost-competitive with diesels ... on assured high-speed service with short turnaround, with water dipped from track pans, and with minimal service to running gear enroute. But take away the Great Steel Fleet (first by touting 'Dieseliners' and then because passengers quit in increasing droves) and the efficiency picture wildly dropped. Likewise, Brown's study circa 1961 focused on high-speed bridge service (with AMC 2-8-4s) run in ways that suited the characteristics of the power; any operation that did not keep the engines rolling quickly or that failed to give them adequate trains to pull that fast made the numbers crash compared to diesel road power. The advantages for switcher power were immediate to nearly all railroads, and while not all of those applied to road power, there were enough advantages even in the early days of the FT to make them operationally attractive. Many railroads coming out of WWII were flush with cash and had banks willing to issue loans and finance equipment trusts -- and even roads eith little hope could acquire mass-produced diesels because they were easy to resell in case of financial trouble, seldom the case by that era even for USRA standardized steam designs.
kenny dorham All else equal (as much as that is possible) was it cheaper to pull freight cars with a coal powered engine than it was with an oil burner.?
This is one of the timeless topics in steam-enthusiast organizations, and there are a few studies that somewhat carefully include and reject costs to 'prove' one or the other.
In the 'good old days' when both steam locomotives and all their auxiliaries and components were essentially costed-down and cheap relative to diesel-electrics, the first cost of the diesel could be wildly greater than a modern 4-8-4 or modernized 2-8-8-2 (I use those three advisedly). This in fact was the primary reason Baldwin abandoned the Essl locomotive ... it couldn't be sold by them cost-effectively at the time.
Likewise, the cost of coal at the time was radically lower than heavy oil in most places, especially for crappy or low-rank mine-run stuff from either low bidders or railroad-owned mines. So even net of ash-handling and other concerns the fuel bill might be lower for steam than for the engineered fuel used in diesels.
The big thing that made steam competitive was cheap but loyal labor. All the careful modernization of maintenance at a NYC or N&W could not reduce the relatively large expense of a water infrastructure (that on modern power needed to be cleaned and chemically treated), and the relatively large amount of servicing stuff that a steam locomotive requires.
You frequently see the Kiefer study (published in 1947) quoted. This famously established that a really good modern engine could be cost-competitive with diesels ... on assured high-speed service with short turnaround, with water dipped from track pans, and with minimal service to running gear enroute. But take away the Great Steel Fleet (first by touting 'Dieseliners' and then because passengers quit in increasing droves) and the efficiency picture wildly dropped. Likewise, Brown's study circa 1961 focused on high-speed bridge service (with AMC 2-8-4s) run in ways that suited the characteristics of the power; any operation that did not keep the engines rolling quickly or that failed to give them adequate trains to pull that fast made the numbers crash compared to diesel road power.
The advantages for switcher power were immediate to nearly all railroads, and while not all of those applied to road power, there were enough advantages even in the early days of the FT to make them operationally attractive. Many railroads coming out of WWII were flush with cash and had banks willing to issue loans and finance equipment trusts -- and even roads eith little hope could acquire mass-produced diesels because they were easy to resell in case of financial trouble, seldom the case by that era even for USRA standardized steam designs.
Sorry.... when i said "oil" i was not talking about diesel electric......... i meant steam trains that burned oil instead of coal.
kenny dorhamAll else equal (as much as that is possible) was it cheaper to pull freight cars with a coal powered engine than it was with an oil burner.?
So the answer 'was it cheaper' depends heavily on what costs you include or omit in your definition of cost to run. Net of maintenance and supplies even modern steam had terrible disadvantages by about 1947, and then the 'holdouts' progressively gave in from the mid-Fifties until everything went fast 'at the end' when all the specialty firms shut down or changed business.
Thank You
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.