Steam & Excursion > Steam Locomotive man-hour requirements

Just how much man-hours in labor does it take to run a steam locomotive for one hour?

I ask this question remembering in the 70's when I was in the Air Force how we were told it took about 13 man-hours of maintenance to keep one of the fighter jets in the air for one hour.

So. . . what would be the guess today for an operating steam locomotive? How many man-hours does it take to keep the beasts running? This would have to include not only the routine maintenance (fueling, watering, sanding, oiling, etc) but also the tear downs for inspections -- and the occasional major rebuilds, such as putting on new tires, rebuilding the brake cylinders, major boiler work, etc.

I'm guessing the number of hours required now is considerably longer than it was 70 years ago when there were steam shops set up more or less as assembly lines to rebuild the steamers and return them to operation.

So -- all you "steamheads" out there -- how many hours of work does it take to run the 4449 or the 844 or the 911 for an hour?

I think we have generally used a factor of "200 man hours, for every hour she operates" for SP4449.

For smaller locomotives that run more frequently, and for locos in actual road service during the days of mainline steam, the general number I have heard is 3 hours in the shop for every hour on the road.

For larger superpower engines that run less frequently like the 4449 I would not be surprised if it was much higher as is stated above.

For live steam models like mine, I find it's about 3:1. Always doing something to it, whether upgrading or replacing worn bearings etc.

-M

Mike Massee
Tehachapi, CA
Photography, Railroading and more..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/14 10:44 by Harlock.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we have generally used a factor of "200
> man hours, for every hour she operates" for
> SP4449.

Good Lord!!

I wonder what the figure is for a modern diesel-electric locomotive?

I'm guessing it would be really hard to compare, since most, if not all, parts for a diesel-electric locomotive, can be replaced by off-the-shelf parts, while very few steam locomotive parts would fit that description. . . .

You are catching on to why the railroads were in such a hurry to get rid of steam.

NOPE!...Dieselization was a fraud. "You buy our new diesels, or we won't ship on your railroad."

Also, you can NOT make comparisons between today's large, mainline excursion steam locomotives, and today's modern, computer controlled diesel electric locomotives.

Keystone1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NOPE!...Dieselization was a fraud. "You buy our
> new diesels, or we won't ship on your railroad."

BS!!!! Just how ELSE were they supposed to ship automobiles in the early 1940s????

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are catching on to why the railroads were in
> such a hurry to get rid of steam.

Which brings up an interesting question. . . .other than putting on a great show, is there any advantage whatsoever in steam as compared to diesel-electric? It seems to me that the diesel-electrics were much more efficient, more reliable, easier to work on, cheaper to run, less polluting, more versatile, and much more pleasant to operate.

Cheaper to build. Not much education needed to maintain, and lots of cheap coal in West Virginia.

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are catching on to why the railroads were
> in
> > such a hurry to get rid of steam.
>
> Which brings up an interesting question. . .
> .other than putting on a great show, is there any
> advantage whatsoever in steam as compared to
> diesel-electric? It seems to me that the
> diesel-electrics were much more efficient, more
> reliable, easier to work on, cheaper to run, less
> polluting, more versatile, and much more pleasant
> to operate.


Putting economics aside,any currently operating Superpower ( pick your favorite) can make better time with any Amtrak train you put behind the tender, with the exception of the NEC. More horsepower at speed wins that fight every time.

And Narniamin...."if you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor."

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which brings up an interesting question. . .
> .other than putting on a great show, is there any
> advantage whatsoever in steam as compared to
> diesel-electric? It seems to me that the
> diesel-electrics were much more efficient, more
> reliable, easier to work on, cheaper to run, less
> polluting, more versatile, and much more pleasant
> to operate.

If there was any advantage to steam, there would still
be thousands of steam locomotives out there working
every day.

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You are catching on to why the railroads were
> in
> > such a hurry to get rid of steam.
>
> Which brings up an interesting question. . .
> .other than putting on a great show, is there any
> advantage whatsoever in steam as compared to
> diesel-electric? It seems to me that the
> diesel-electrics were much more efficient, more
> reliable, easier to work on, cheaper to run, less
> polluting, more versatile, and much more pleasant
> to operate.

For a time, there was a good case for steam locomotives in third world countries due to the relative ease of repair. Diesel-Electrics require more specialized equipment and parts to diagnose and fix, whereas steam locomotives can use the same 1800s technology that the locals were already familiar with. Buying a diesel electric makes you reliant on an international supply chain, which may cause difficulties if you are in a place that has an unstable currency, political situation or lack of good trade partners. (Think Cuba) or is very remote and isolated. I think the number of these places has shrunk down to basically nothing, the last hold outs are pretty much gone. It only lasted in China so long because they have plenty of coal and labor is cheap, but even that's down to a few short lines.

-M

Mike Massee
Tehachapi, CA
Photography, Railroading and more..

Yep, the argument was setteled decades ago, darn it. Only thing better about steam is its sound and looks.

NO!..."In its field, the steam locomotive is unsurpassed. Where locomotives of 6,000, 8,000 or even 10,000 horsepower are needed, the steam locomotive is the only answer. We will continue to build such steam locomotives." 1949 Lima Locomotive Works God Bless 'em. I LOVE Lima Super Power!

As one old head once passed along to me ...

Steam ... five minutes to find the problem, several hours to fix it.

Diesel ... several hours to find the problem, five minutes to fix it.

Keystone1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NO!..."In its field, the steam locomotive is
> unsurpassed. Where locomotives of 6,000, 8,000 or
> even 10,000 horsepower are needed, the steam
> locomotive is the only answer. We will continue to
> build such steam locomotives." 1949 Lima
> Locomotive Works God Bless 'em. I LOVE
> Lima Super Power!

You forget one VERY KEY fact about steam locomotives vs. diesel electric locomotives, i.e. A steam locomotive can not even START the train, that it COULD have hauled to great speed!

Keystone1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NO!..."In its field, the steam locomotive is
> unsurpassed. Where locomotives of 6,000, 8,000 or
> even 10,000 horsepower are needed, the steam
> locomotive is the only answer. We will continue to
> build such steam locomotives." 1949 Lima
> Locomotive Works


Even 65 years ago that was stretching things a bit.
Of course, nobody at Lima foresaw such things as Jawn
Henry, 10,000 hp GTELs or 6,600 hp diesels, or AC
diesels with more starting tractive effort than any
steam locomotive.

God knows how much I love and respect the Nickel Plate Berks, and maybe no other steam loco was better suited to it's assigned task than they were, but even so, Norfolk Southern doesn't run any hot shot time freights with 50 forty foot boxcars, so all of that "Power at Speed" talk really goes for naught in the modern world. If I need to pull 10-15,000 tons of train from a dead stop with only two crewmen, the diesel wins every time. There was some talk in another thread about how some of the NS Heritage units are getting so dirty because some are seeing 184 days between trips to the shop. NKP 765 will run from Detroit to Fort Wayne this summer, and will require servicing on both ends of that trip. It doesn't take too long to figure out the economics of THAT.