Steam & Excursion > Dieselization is a FACT..

In my experience and opinion,  inevitable dieselization had many factors at work following WW2.

#Across the land, most of the operating steam locos still running were of medium size, 2-8-2s, etc. 
The quantity of locos built after 1934/35 were a small proportion of the typical RR’s total,fleet.
Locomotive fleets were stressed with old, worn-out fleets of steamers,—-  left,  after the strains of continuous use during WW2.

# Labor costs had skyrocketed after the labor upheavals following WW2.   The numbers of distinct labor crafts
(and related “time-claims) required RR’s maintain ‘fat’  labor rosters.  
The advent If diesels, a new technology, caught the Unions unprepared for the fact that RRs deemed diesels
could be given routine maintenance by utilizing only 3 crafts: Laborers, Electricians, and Machinists & way fewer of them!

# National Freight and Passenger Traffic patterns were dynamically changing as competition from
increasing numbers of new highways loomed.  The interstate highway system was yet to be built..

#The D.C. diesel-electrics of the era exerted their maximum, continuous Tractive power at 12 MPH....
as train speed increased, the induced electrical magnetic attraction increased as a matter of electrical reality...
as armature rotative speeds increased,  the strength of the applied magnetic field had to be reduced
( thus, field-shunting) — to cut down on the reflected field of the opposite polarity, increased in magnitude:
commonly called “back-EMF”...

#Diesels of that era gave the Yardmasters of the day their most cherished dreams ....immense drag-power.  
Yardmasters could assemble massive amounts of cars....and arrange for crew to be called late
(in the shifts of crews operating the yards) .  Thus, instead if short, fast trains —- that steamers were good at that taxed the operating departments’ Manning Tools”. ( for short, fast trains) .  
Yardmasters could assemble multiple diesel units into 6&7 unit combinations ( up to the tensile strength of the
weakest couplers in any given train).   The arrival of such great (12-mph) traction power
gave the Yardmasters what they had dreamed-of, since the days of monstrous 2-8-0s of the early 1900s...

#Massive-length trains soon taxed the track space and timing capacities of the destination Yards, so that trains
stacked up  ( on the mains) waiting fior available track space at the destination yards ....
The longer trains had to be broken-down to fit he limited capacities of the then-extant receiving yard tracks.

The 12 mph speeds of the trains progressing on the main line aided the receiving yards’ by slowing down the timing of
multiple arrivals.  The existing Yards had been built in the steam era, of short, fast & frequent freights.

# Steamers were very expensive to operate while sitting around, waiting... If not actually pulling freight.
You could not simply walk away from an idled steamer.  
Diesels could, and can sit, idling for weeks at a time, UNATTENDED — until the fuel runs out.

# Financing opportunities were advantageous to the RRs purchasing ‘new power’ —- a single A-unit (at the time) cost about what a modern 4-8-4 cost.... A modern 4-8-4 could out-perform any 3-unit diesel m.u. set, of that era.
It took 4 typical diesels to do what one steamer could do in train handling.
So, RRs, like the Nickel Plate, saw that they needed to buy 44 diesel units OR,
buy 11 steamers to satisfy their 1948  traffic needs —- they opted to order 10 Berkshires from Lima ...in 1949.

Other RRs saw the advantages of borrowing the money ( deductible ‘interest’ costs) to buy new diesels, massively cut their labor costs ( which reduced their IRS monstrous payroll tax-withholding, cash-submittals — due every 90 days) , & take advantage of the generous depreciation allowances of the fleets of new diesels; and also, gain the advantages of letting diesels sit,
idling at virtually no costs to the carriers.

ALL of the factors, when combined, allowed RRS two decades of financial rewards... it wasn’t until the Staggers Act
of the early 70’s that RRs got major tax relief from the 1930s’ era of governments ( taxing) soaking
the cash-rich railroads.  Competition from outside sources, the elimination of passenger revenues,
LCL traffic, small customers using truck carriers, etc soon caught the RRs  in a negative cash-flow reality
that threatened their existence, as asuccessful business model.

So, it wasn’t until the perfection of the AC traction locomotives that engines capable of truly high-HP
capabilities that the diesels finally could catch up to what the 1940s steamers could do, on a per-unit basis.

A fraud, no. 
A successful step in the evolution of RR motive power, yes.

Dramatically less labor costs and the ability of diesels to sit around ( unattended), idling, for days were major advantages —-
modern practices and newer computer advances allow the virtual shut-down of unused, parked units...only automatically re-starting to maintain engine-block temperatures...until the fuel runs out..

W.

Not proofed, yet



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/19 11:55 by wcamp1472.

Wes,
You might also mention the cost savings from no longer having to maintain all the fueling and watering facilities required by steam locomotives.  Servicing facilities for diesels were both simpler and far fewer in number.
Gordon

Very true...
There’s a lot of “infrastructure”, and the related labor costs, to maintain related structures that supported steamers.

​W.

Wes, can you explain more about the 4-8-4 out performing three F units?

ON the T&P they found that one 2-10-4 (TE97.000 equal to about 2.3   F-7's.  However, those diesels could start a much heavier train than the 2-10-4.  The amount of tonnage being equal, the 2-10-4 could out run the diesels.

Where do I get “ .3 F units”?
Is that 4 cylinders, or 5, out of 16?

​W.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/19 07:09 by wcamp1472.

Frisco, like a number of other roads chose to dieselize early on.  By doing so the newest engines on the property, the 4500s (4-8-4) went into storage along with a select group of other steam engines.  The oldest of the 4500s was nine years old at the time.  Several of them sat decaying at the site of the Lindenwood roundhouse until the equipment trust was paid, late 50s into the 60s.  The last one 4519 was scrapped very late after having been in Ft.Scott, KS for years.
Roundhouses were torn down, service facilities leveled and re-emerged as new diesel facilities.   All the "plant" that was involved in the steam era either disappeared or was adapted for diesels.
Originally they did try running huge trains, but it was a nightmare on the hill and dale profiles on parts of the line.  The "presence" along the line quietly went away.  Depots torn down, all CTC so no train orders, towers and depots..
I'm an old dinosaur, but to me that was when the railroads lost thier character.  No face to the RR in smaller towns any more.  In another decade or two, to me they became very boring. 

I'm not quite fartin' dust yet, but I'm sounding the same way about the disappearing variety over the last 25 years.......

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

Very well Wes. I imagine a lot of what you say is regrettably true.   But please don’t forget “the pressure” put on top raillroad decision makers.    Pressure such as wining and dining railroad officials and their wives.   Suggesting that they would ship auto parts and assembled cars and busses (replacing worm out wooden trolleys), on routes that favor future diesel purchases.  I recall reading a detailed article on these activities and others done by GM to destroy our beloved steam fleets.  The mass slaughter of the American steam locomotive.

One aspect of how EMD won out over the existing steam builders was that they sold to the accounting and executive officers of the railroads whereas their competitors tried to sell to the mechanical and operating officers.
It is a big picture thing.
Another aspect is that the thermal efficiency of a non-condensing steam engine in the temperature/pressure range of locomotives is less than 10% whereas the early diesels were in the mid-20s.  When I learned that fact in my Physics class on thermodynamics I knew it was all over but the shouting as far as the rumors or stored steam engines returning to service or making some sort of comeback. 

I was a trainmaster for a major class1 and would have hated to have worked with steam engines.  Diesels just kept going and going and didn't have to be babied and constantly needing water.  In my yard we had 7 EMD GP7s that worked the steel mill we served and could pull enormous loads and never complained with just mininmal servicing.  Also EMDs, at the time, were much more reliable than the other makes.  It didn't take "arm twisting" to get my road to buy them.  Certain railroads like D&H, Rutland had all-Alco fleets so there goes your conspiracy theory.  I am old enough to remember regular service steam but would take diesels any day.  It's the "armchair railfans" that think steam was better.  I was a REAL railroader and know better.

Hearing all the details about the move from Steam to diesel is interesting but, not too rewarding to someone who grew up with a daily steam presence and a steam engineer in the family. To this day I can muster no enthusiam for the latest big-box grumblers which unfortunatley have all the indivuality of an Amazon box - except their mostly all the same size. What we have today is a transportation system that is necessary to meet the demands of this era. Nonetheless, that does not diminish either the role of STEAM power in the industrial evolution of this nation and it's history. Recgonizing that diesels have replaced steam is history. However, there's no denying the accomplishments of STEAM powered locomotives during the 19th and 20th century.

I can absolutely say that watching 3 AC-12's pound their way over Donner summit with over 100 cars in tow was a much more impressive demonstration of that technology, than noting a similary consist being drug along by a string of faceless infernal combustion drones in today's technology.

There were REAL RAILROADERS back in the days of STEAM and I know some who accepted, but were not all giggly about the change to diesel.

John Mills

“Another aspect is that the thermal efficiency of a
> non-condensing steam engine in the..”

With locomotives, “the reality of efficiency”( steam or diesel),  only applies while being used to haul trains...
Unfortunately, on most RRs, locomotive utilization is low, during any given 24-hour period. 
Too much time is spent sitting/parked at terminals and yards, unused.

A typical low utilization rate is common on commuter railroads ...maybe run 2 hours in the morning;  then, two hours in the PM..
Utilization?  4-hours out of 24...ain’t too good, “efficiency-wise...”

So, discussions about relative “efficiency” are meaningless ..when locos are parked, idling...
for extended periods.   However, dismals are ‘better at sitting’ ..since they ‘run’ —— until out of fuel....
with no costly “labor hours”... 

An isolated steamer who’s fire dies out,  is pretty much stuck ( for 10 to 12 hours) .... dismals can be grabbed
at any time...as long as there’s fuel in the tank.

W.
 

If that oil shortage BS of the early 70s had persisted things might be very differentf.

Out

Steam is great and fun to watch/chase and photograph.  But, compare the number of employees employed in locomotive maintenance in steam days vs diesel days.  Not to mention much less infrastructure to maintain and pay property taxes on.  Dieselization reduced costs tremendously and railroads exist to make money on services provided,  not run trains for railfans to drool over.   Then there's five-person crews,  cabooses, etc.   And in the future there may be remote controlled trains.   In the avgeek community there is much interest in piston-powered airliners,  but few if any would advocate returning to such for air travel.  Nostalgic,  yes;  useful today, not really.

Yes, yes.....The New York, Ontario & Western Railroad......the FIRST Class I railroad to completely dieselize.      So, HOW did that work out for them?       Just think of Mountain #405 standing on a passenger train,  in front of the MIddletown, NY passenger station....(now standing in ruins).      Yes, yes......just buy these growlers, and your problems will be solved.    And, you will get a promotion and a raise!              But for now, just let me take you and your lovely wife out to dinner.....

BTW....I don’t drink Coolaid.

Ok, let’s see.....a fleet of 50 streamlined 4-4-4-4’s to handle the long distance passenger runs.    I’ll vote for that decision.

You may not be drinking Kool Aid, but you sure must be smoking something.

"Dieselization is a Fact"? Where have you been the past 73 years?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/19 16:50 by RRBaron.

gbmott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wes,
> You might also mention the cost savings from no
> longer having to maintain all the fueling and
> watering facilities ....

+1.  That was one of the key points made by Kiefer;  and it was not only the average cost, but the cost and delays during freezing weather.   He also pointed out that while a Niagara had more hp than the E7 consist and thus could make up more time if needed, one of the principal cause of delay was the problems that arose servicing steam in winter.

There is another point on servicing steam that I learned from reading Railway Age issues from the thirties:   Most steam railroading had been built around the division point concept and changing locomotives there.  With the advent of modern steam -- the big 4-8-4's, etc -- to take full advantage of interdivisional runs it would be necessary to invest in run-through steam servicing facilities -- the steam equivalent of today's main line fuel pad -- at no small cost.  Dieselization avoided that.

Best regards, SZ