Many a railfan claim that diesel locomotive lifeless and sterile machines but I disagree whole heartily with that statement. Sure diesels don't have those convoluted moving part but they do have beautiful air horns, the wide variety of "noses", the cab which gives it the appearance of a face, the sound of radiator noise, the diesel engine starting up like a beast waking up, diesel exhaust, or the most memorable part the roar of a diesel engine from miles away. Just my take on it.
Railroad to Freedom
Of course a Diesel has all of those attributes, otherwise people would have given up on railfanning a long time ago.
Part of the allure of steam is nostalgia, which can take many forms. On a trip on Delta, I told me wife that I we were about to board a "steam locomotive", i.e. one of the last DC-9 Series 50's left. I got this look and a remark, "Why didn't you book us on a modern airliner instead of a relic?" when it appeared that we weren't on a Series 50 but on a somewhat newer MD-88 -- longer fuselage, the somewhat larger re-fanned JT-8D's, strakes on both the nose in front and nacelles in the rear, that redesigned tail cone, oh, and not that completely threadbare carpeting inside and plastic cabin interior with less grime.
Part of the charm of steam is the pistons, rods, and valve gear, not to mention whisps of steam from the turbogenerator, the open valve drains. The other part is the sounds -- the hiss of the blower, the creaking of the firebox sheets, the clank of the fireman's shovel, the gurgling of the boiler, the chuff of the stack. The steam locomotive seems like a living creature, much more so than a Diesel ever could.
Yes, steam locomotives. Like at EAA in Oshkosh where they brought a Lockheed Super Constellation Turbo Compound up to the flight line, started each of four big radial engine with a big "chug-chug-chug", with first flames and then big puffs of smoke coming out the exhaust pipes, with a ground crew standing by with those giant fire extinguishers, and then the roar as each engine "caught" and started up. Yes, steam locomotives -- the last of the great prop-liners and the end of mainline steam were roughly in the same time frame, and at EAA we could have been watching a restored Pennsy T1 for all that mattered, and I also heard that the Turbo Compound engines were "a bridge too far" in extracting performance out of a piston (actually a piston-exhaust turbine compound) aircraft engine and were maintenance nightmares and didn't stay long in service, much like the T1.
So maybe nostalgia for the DC-9-50 is roughly a yearning for first-generation Diesel's?
The WSOR goes right by where I work, and when I hear the crossing gate bells and the train horn when outside, I will turn and stop to watch an SD-40 with a string of freight cars.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Yes, steam locomotives. Like at EAA in Oshkosh where they brought a Lockheed Super Constellation Turbo Compound up to the flight line, started each of four big radial engine with a big "chug-chug-chug", with first flames and then big puffs of smoke coming out the exhaust pipes, with a ground crew standing by with those giant fire extinguishers, and then the roar as each engine "caught" and started up. Yes, steam locomotives -- the last of the great prop-liners and the end of mainline steam were roughly in the same time frame, and at EAA we could have been watching a restored Pennsy T1 for all that mattered, and I also heard that the Turbo Compound engines were "a bridge too far" in extracting performance out of a piston (actually a piston-exhaust turbine compound) aircraft engine and were maintenance nightmares and didn't stay long in service, much like the T1.
Paul quite right about the turbo compound. much of the problem was lack of cooling thru the engine shroud. The shroud on the DC-7s were worse than Connies ( L-1049 & L-1649-G & H ) and that really had the DC- 7 engines failing. That is why DC-6 aircraft lasted longer than DC-7s. It was all about cooling the turbos and appears that engineer designers have never learned their lessons from predecessors even on autos and locos as well/.
Paul Milenkovic Of course a Diesel has all of those attributes, otherwise people would have given up on railfanning a long time ago. Part of the allure of steam is nostalgia, which can take many forms. On a trip on Delta, I told me wife that I we were about to board a "steam locomotive", i.e. one of the last DC-9 Series 50's left. I got this look and a remark, "Why didn't you book us on a modern airliner instead of a relic?" when it appeared that we weren't on a Series 50 but on a somewhat newer MD-88 -- longer fuselage, the somewhat larger re-fanned JT-8D's, strakes on both the nose in front and nacelles in the rear, that redesigned tail cone, oh, and not that completely threadbare carpeting inside and plastic cabin interior with less grime. Part of the charm of steam is the pistons, rods, and valve gear, not to mention whisps of steam from the turbogenerator, the open valve drains. The other part is the sounds -- the hiss of the blower, the creaking of the firebox sheets, the clank of the fireman's shovel, the gurgling of the boiler, the chuff of the stack. The steam locomotive seems like a living creature, much more so than a Diesel ever could. Yes, steam locomotives. Like at EAA in Oshkosh where they brought a Lockheed Super Constellation Turbo Compound up to the flight line, started each of four big radial engine with a big "chug-chug-chug", with first flames and then big puffs of smoke coming out the exhaust pipes, with a ground crew standing by with those giant fire extinguishers, and then the roar as each engine "caught" and started up. Yes, steam locomotives -- the last of the great prop-liners and the end of mainline steam were roughly in the same time frame, and at EAA we could have been watching a restored Pennsy T1 for all that mattered, and I also heard that the Turbo Compound engines were "a bridge too far" in extracting performance out of a piston (actually a piston-exhaust turbine compound) aircraft engine and were maintenance nightmares and didn't stay long in service, much like the T1. So maybe nostalgia for the DC-9-50 is roughly a yearning for first-generation Diesel's? The WSOR goes right by where I work, and when I hear the crossing gate bells and the train horn when outside, I will turn and stop to watch an SD-40 with a string of freight cars.
I never really saw appeal in steam locomotive to be honest. They all look the same same not to say that they are but most of them look like water tubes on wheels and usually but not always come in one color which is black. Another reason why the appeal never go to me might be because I never grew up with them like a lot of people on this forum.
edit: I do yearn for the first gen diesels like the e units and GP series
I always felt like the old Alcos had more personality and soul then the EMDs ever did. As a former Union pacific Conductor I can tell you every locomotive had its own personality. I especially liked having the old SP and D&RGW units on my train as they often spewed thick black or white smoke giving us some entertainment during our trips. It was usually a 50/50 chance they would get to where they were going still running.
I remember those old C30-7's used to frequently blow fire out their stacks. They had a wonderful sound as well.
One thing I will say is that the Diesel locomotive isn't a memory, a note in the annals of history, not the even the machine that was or could be, but it is all of those things and it is the machine that is, the machine that does, and the machine that continues to be. So if the steam locomotive is human then the Diesel locomotive is divine.......
Steam locomotives were alive! Just about everyone in town knew if they were struggling, loafing, stuck, etc. Young whippersnappers today don't know the emotional involvement that we old-timers remember of lying in bed listening to a locomotive struggling to start a heavy load, drivers slipping, taking up the slack, trying again. Then, when he's finally out of the yard and on the main, he gradually picks up speed as the sound fades into the distance, blowing for the crossings. Then comes that warm feeling: "He made it!"
It's the SOUND that get's me.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Maybe its just me but I don't get whats special about a tube of iron on wheels
I, too, prefer diesel to steam, though I sit in just as much awe as the next railfan whenever a steamer passes by. I had the rare opportunity to work on steam (and diesel) locomotives during the 2009 Ely, Nevada RailCamp, and it was really something else to feel the living, breathing aspects of a real working steam engine. There is just a certain air about a steamer that diesels can't produce. To refer to a steamer as a 'tube of iron on wheels' is just a bit too naive or uninformed, to me at least. :P
I prefer diesel because of the sound, the clean, powerful lines (especially on EMDs like the SD50 and SD70ACe), and because I just prefer the sound of a well-tuned diesel horn to that of a steam whistle. (I'm in love with the RS3L and new cast K5LLA, and the K3LA isn't bad either)
There are few things in life that can give me goosebumps every time, and the sound of an SD50 pair throttling up and pulling a train out onto the mainline is one of those things.
For some of us, there is significantly more special about a 'tube of iron on wheels' than a steel box on much smaller wheels. My $0.02.
Frank
flmiller For some of us, there is significantly more special about a 'tube of iron on wheels' than a steel box on much smaller wheels. My $0.02. Frank
Except in many more shapes than a box comes in more colors and sizes
ontheBNSF flmiller: For some of us, there is significantly more special about a 'tube of iron on wheels' than a steel box on much smaller wheels. My $0.02. Frank Except in many more shapes than a box comes in more colors and sizes
flmiller: For some of us, there is significantly more special about a 'tube of iron on wheels' than a steel box on much smaller wheels. My $0.02. Frank
I'd argue an SP Cab-forward doesn't look at all like an SP Daylight 4-8-4, and that's just one railroad. One big knock steam fans had when diesels came in is "they all look alike". That's not really true, but you need to understand buying a diesel was like buying ready-to-wear clothes. You pick your color and a few options, but otherwise an RS-3 is an RS-3 regardless of which railroad owns it. A steam engine was like buying a tailor-made suit, the railroad and builder worked together to create an engine that was exactly what the railroad wanted.
I've heard one of the problems for Baldwin when they offered diesels, was that they tried to offer too many options, and lost out on the savings brought about by standardization.
For your consideration in November 1966 TRAINS:
CSSHEGEWISCH For your consideration in November 1966 TRAINS: The case for the soulless diesel diesels have as much soul as steam by Joyce, Anthony BR britain frontispiece p. 48
Where can I find that article can't seem to find it myself
MidlandMike I've heard one of the problems for Baldwin when they offered diesels, was that they tried to offer too many options, and lost out on the savings brought about by standardization.
The big knock against Baldwin the the diesel era, was that their MU equipment was pneumatic oriented rather than electrical as all the other manufacturers had adopted, therefore, Baldwin engines could only be MU'd with Baldwins. The other manufacturers products could be mixed and matched as necessary to handle the business.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I appreciate the steam locomotive and what gave to us. The steam locomotive was useful and was novel to look at, but it is ugly in the sense that it is a greedy machine that takes from us and requires of us. Not saying petrol is perfect or that the diesel engine is perfect. But the steam locomotive takes from us whether it be coal miners dying in mines, firemen braking there backs shoveling coal, or the countless hours of maintenance they required. Heck even the modern steam power plant take from us with its pollution or high maintenance and coal miners still die in mines with black lung or dangerous radiation from nuclear power plants. So steamers may or may not be human but humans are often are often greedy and take.
ontheBNSF Many a railfan claim that diesel locomotive lifeless and sterile machines but I disagree whole heartily with that statement. Sure diesels don't have those convoluted moving part but they do have beautiful air horns, the wide variety of "noses", the cab which gives it the appearance of a face, the sound of radiator noise, the diesel engine starting up like a beast waking up, diesel exhaust, or the most memorable part the roar of a diesel engine from miles away. Just my take on it.
Humans are alleged to have souls. I am somewhat dubious.
Some humans claim that all living things have souls. I am extremely dubious.
A machine that has power, propulsion and control systems and actually moves under its own power isn't `lifeless,' but it still needs human input to work. As for `sterile,' (devoid of microscopic life-forms) you have got to be kidding. If it has a soul, the soul is that of the human controller.
That said, a modern North American diesel locomotive has the `soul' of a portable diesel generator, except that it's mounted on wheels with traction motors geared to the axles. I can get more excited about a lineside relay box.
Steam locos had their machinery out where anyone with one functional eyeball could see it. Even an ancient 0-4-0T - kettle has more visual appeal than ANY diesel, no matter how large, powerful or noisy. OTOH, the boiler side of a Shay is downright boring.
I know that steam locos are inefficient, dangerous (diesels don't have boiler explosions) and way too expensive to be viable railroad power today. The same can be said for clipper ships. But they have far more power to stir MY soul...
Chuck
The explosive volatile nature of oil & gas also make its exploration, production, and transportation dangerous.
ontheBNSF I appreciate the steam locomotive and what gave to us. The steam locomotive was useful and was novel to look at, but it is ugly in the sense that it is a greedy machine that takes from us and requires of us. Not saying petrol is perfect or that the diesel engine is perfect. But the steam locomotive takes from us whether it be coal miners dying in mines, firemen braking there backs shoveling coal, or the countless hours of maintenance they required. Heck even the modern steam power plant take from us with its pollution or high maintenance and coal miners still die in mines with black lung or dangerous radiation from nuclear power plants. So steamers may or may not be human but humans are often are often greedy and take.
A steam engine ugly and greedy? Hoo boy, someones going to get some flak over that one!
In my opinion a steam engine is like a big friendly dog. It eats, drinks, breathes, slobbers, chuffs, snorts, woofs, and if you treat it right it'll work its big heart out for you. As far as safety, i.e. boiler explosions, I'll give the great Steve Lee the last word on that: "A steam engine is as safe as YOU make it!"
OK, there is the "exhaust" problem with a big dog, but if you love dogs that's just something you deal with!
I have had the Pleasure and priviledge to run all four of these, plus a GP38-2, I will not deny that the GP 38 and SD9 were a thrill to run, there was no comparison to the steamers. I enjoyed them all, but I doubt that even the staunchest Diseasel fan could resist smiling while opening the throttle on that little H.K. Porter 0-4-0T, that little engine could melt even the Grinche's Heart.
The first generation diesels had much more personality than those colorful boxes on wheels roaming the rails today. Maybe it's just personal perspective, but I personally see much more variety in the sizes and shapes of Steam, than I do of diesels, especially the look alikes produced today.
I was born in 1965, so I NEVER saw Steam in regular revenue service, so it is not a matter of it being what I "grew Up With", Sadly I missed that chapter in Railroad history, but they still FASCINATE me beyond my ability to explain or describe.
Neither can I explain or describe how a Steam Locomotive feels to almost be Alive, but I sure have FELT it!! Opening the throttle on a diesel, you can fell the strength and power, waiting to be commanded, but there is not (was not for me, anyway) the same Soul that I felt running the steamers, something that many Pilots and Sailors would understand.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
You don't approach the soul of any machine until you start working it at, or beyond, it designed capabilities - then it puts it heart and soul in the operators hands - the good ones will get it to perform beyond what paper says it possible. The bad ones, not so much. Steam, diesel, OTR truck, tow vehicle with a trailer - all machines have a soul when they are stressed - just like man. You never know a man's true soul until he is stressed.
As one who worked on them for 30 years, I can state that diesel locomotives do not have soul, nor are they interesting. That's why people still restore steam locomotives today, including myself.
bobyar2001 As one who worked on them for 30 years, I can state that diesel locomotives do not have soul, nor are they interesting. That's why people still restore steam locomotives today, including myself.
I find them interesting them and you claim about them not having a soul is entirely yours
The determination of 'soul' in equipment, tends to say more about those who make the statements pro or con, than it does about the equipment itself.
blue streak 1 Paul Milenkovic: Yes, steam locomotives. Like at EAA in Oshkosh where they brought a Lockheed Super Constellation Turbo Compound up to the flight line, started each of four big radial engine with a big "chug-chug-chug", with first flames and then big puffs of smoke coming out the exhaust pipes, with a ground crew standing by with those giant fire extinguishers, and then the roar as each engine "caught" and started up. Yes, steam locomotives -- the last of the great prop-liners and the end of mainline steam were roughly in the same time frame, and at EAA we could have been watching a restored Pennsy T1 for all that mattered, and I also heard that the Turbo Compound engines were "a bridge too far" in extracting performance out of a piston (actually a piston-exhaust turbine compound) aircraft engine and were maintenance nightmares and didn't stay long in service, much like the T1. Paul quite right about the turbo compound. much of the problem was lack of cooling thru the engine shroud. The shroud on the DC-7s were worse than Connies ( L-1049 & L-1649-G & H ) and that really had the DC- 7 engines failing. That is why DC-6 aircraft lasted longer than DC-7s. It was all about cooling the turbos and appears that engineer designers have never learned their lessons from predecessors even on autos and locos as well/.
Paul Milenkovic: Yes, steam locomotives. Like at EAA in Oshkosh where they brought a Lockheed Super Constellation Turbo Compound up to the flight line, started each of four big radial engine with a big "chug-chug-chug", with first flames and then big puffs of smoke coming out the exhaust pipes, with a ground crew standing by with those giant fire extinguishers, and then the roar as each engine "caught" and started up. Yes, steam locomotives -- the last of the great prop-liners and the end of mainline steam were roughly in the same time frame, and at EAA we could have been watching a restored Pennsy T1 for all that mattered, and I also heard that the Turbo Compound engines were "a bridge too far" in extracting performance out of a piston (actually a piston-exhaust turbine compound) aircraft engine and were maintenance nightmares and didn't stay long in service, much like the T1.
There's a bit more to the story. One is that the P&W Double Wasps used on the DC-6 go a head start on the Wright engines - 10's of thousands produced in WW2 and production extended to the 1950's - more chances to get the bugs out than with the Wright's. This is a bit like the difference between the history of the 567 and the 244/251. The Power Recovery Turbines were a maintenance headache on the Wright's in addition to the cooling problems which were also an issue with the non-compounded versions used on the B-29's. Note that the Wasp Major had its own share of problems.
The second advantage of the DC-6 over the DC-7 was the higher zero fuel payload of the DC-6, which allowed airlines to pack more people into the 6's for short flights. The DC-7's, especially the DC-7C, were specialized airliners, designed to fly fast over long distances with a large cabin for passenger comfort on long flights - much the same way that a long distance coach is configured differently than a coach used in corridor service.
- Erik
Steam is magic and there will never be anything like it. But trains are magic too and I will always turn to watch them and listen to the different diesel horns. I never knew much about the differences between diesels until I got involved with railfans on Facebook. They blow me away with their knowledge, they can look a picture and know exactly what kind of diesel it is. I am learning to tell the differences, but I'll never be an expert like they are.
I just enjoy trains, no matter what is at the head end, but seeing steam is special and always will be to me.
When I was 19 I worked at Six Flags over Georgia as a fireman and locomotive engineer on their two narrow gauge 4-4-0 steam engines they had at the time. One was the General and the other was the Texas modeled after the Civil War Great Locomotive Chase engines. Now I'm 42 and I run big diesels for a class one railroad as a living. Now don't get me wrong because I love diesels. I've ran everything from a SW1 to an SD90MAC. Each one or set has had their own unique characteristics. Some are great performers and others not so much. There have also been times I've treated them as beings as if I could somehow coerce them into getting a heavy train started. LOL! Other times I have cursed them for being a sorry excuse for a locomotive.
With all that being said though not one diesel I have ever ran even came close to those two little 4-4-0 steamers when it came to having a soul. I have always thought nothing man has ever made has come as close to a living breathing being than a steam locomotive. As humans we are considered unique and fragile. Not one of us are alike and unlike modern diesels neither are steam engines. Both of the two steamers I ran were made by the same company during the same time period however each one was as different from the other as night is to day. One was slow but a hard puller and the other was fast but couldn't pull as much. Both had air compressors that sounded like a beating heart. They would let you know if you were treating them too ruff and they also let you know when everything was right. They required a lot of maintenance and upkeep but we didn't mind because we loved them just like they were family.
I wish you could have that kind of experience yourself because I believe if you could your opinion would probably be different.
Tim
I drove OTR trucks as most of you know. I swear most of my trucks had a Soul.
These trucks here are the ones I had at Orbit Trans. 161 the First one I drove OTR was Gutless and would Run from about Anything she saw that resembled a hill and hated to even RUN I swear. 167 or Blue as I called her would do anything I asked and more and loved to be loaded Heavy and never left me Stranded even with a Broke Mainshaft in the Transmission. Then their was 380 Old Rose as she was called. Well she was a Throughbred and loved to Run but had the Guts of a Draft Horse also. She also would carry all the load put on her. But she hated to have bad Parts and let the shop KNOW when they used them on her on the road.
Here are the ones at Florilli. 1282 was a good solid Beast that did what I needed When I needed her to do it but I swear was posseced by a Demon at times. Taking a tree in the roof fairing was not a good thing to do. 2482 was next there she was the old warhorse that needed to be retired but was still in service as the Demands of the Company required it and she did as required. 3252 or as we called her SATAN was a shop queen she never saw a CAT Shop she could pass without needing a epair or a Pete Dealer for the Same REASONS.
Millis I had 2 trucks 9607 and 9813. 07 was an Underpowered weakling that was forced to work to hard and she hated it. 9813 pony trying to make good in a draft horse world.
Now we get to Henderson. 7806 was First on the list that girl loved me and about everything I did she liked Except the hills NO ENGINE BRAKE so she ate brakes up pretty fast but other than that was a Great truck. Next was 9800 Great truck but worn out and needed to be used for Local work. The we have 9813 the tester of the Fleet I got LOVED her I wish I could have married this one. More power than all the fleet so pulled like a Clydesdale would run all day long at 75 like a Stallion. Last one I had was 2025 that one well lets just say I hated her with a passion she hated her engine and tranny and it showed as it was to slow for her.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.