Steam Vs Diesel

[lmackattack]

Good write up on the diffrences and why Railroads switched to Diesels
http://www.railway-technical.com/st-vs-de.shtml

 

[Selector]

This is a hot topic, and not one easily settled. I haven't read this yet, but one fact often overlooked is that GM Acceptance Corp. was implemented to make the sale of diesels almost impossible to resist for railroads at the time.

 

[lmackattack]

This is a hot topic, and not one easily settled. I haven't read this yet, but one fact often overlooked is that GM Acceptance Corp. was implemented to make the sale of diesels almost impossible to resist for railroads at the time.

yea I dont under stand the full spectrum of it and I was not born some 30 years after the last steam engines rode the minlines in service but the way a old Engineer explaind it to me once was that the diffrence with steam and diesel in simple terms was that a Steam engine could pull a train at speed that it could not start and a diesel could start a train that it cant pull. hope that makes some sence

In maintence aspects I can see how a Diesel could have alot less downtime and less man hours to perform the service tasks. Im still a Steam engine fan but I see how Diesels won over the Railroads.

 

[Selector]

One other thing, Trent. Diesels were relatively unknown when they were adopted wholesale from a life-cycle perspective. The railroads found eventually that the typical diesel has a life-cycle of just under 14 years, on average across the industry (with variance, of course), whereas many of the steam engines replaced in the mid-late 50's were only 7 or eight years old at the time, and steamers routinely served, with maintenance, for 50-60 years, long after their amortization upon acquisition.

-Crandell

 

[UP2CSX]

Without getting into the physics of steam vs. diesel, there are several indisputable reasons for the disappearance of steam:

1. As Crandell stated, at one time, GM knew how to run a business. With all the steam engines worn out from hard service in WWII, the railroads had to order lots of new motive power. GM offered very attractive terms to railroads that wanted to buy F units. At the same time, GM was destroying the remaining streetcar and interurban lines with the same tactic through the National City Bus Lines, which GM owned.

2. MU Control. You could have a bunch of smaller diesels pull a big train with one engineer and fireman. You needed either one really big steam engine or a bunch of smaller steam engines to pull a big train and every locomotive required an engineer and fireman.

3. Infrastructure. It was expensive to haul, process, and deliver coal to steam engines. The average railroad spent almost 10% of its revenue in 1945 hauling the fuel they needed for steam engines, which was a dead loss. Steam engines needed lots of water so thousands of water facilities had to be maintained. Even railroads like the UP, that were almost 100% oil-fired, still had to maintain water facilities.

4. Standardization. An F unit was an F unit. All the important mechanical parts were identical from engine to engine so they could be maintained at any engine facility. Steam locomotives were rarely standardized even within the same class on the same railroad, so expensive machine shops had to be maintained to custom make replacement parts. Given the different requirements for fuel and water among railroads, it was almost impossible to interchange engines. With the arrival of the F and GP units, this not only became possible but common. One of the reasons F-M failed as a diesel manufacturer was sticking to the air throttle, which meant F-M units could only be used with other F-M units. GM got this early on and were successful because they built each engine much the same as they built Chevy's.

5. Pollution. Before 1950, there were few pollution laws outside New York City. LA was fighting smog and those smoky steam engines were easy to blame. Laws were being passed all over the country limiting the use of steam engines in cities, leaving the railroads to face maintaining steam power for mainline hauls and diesel power for use in cities. The economics of using one kind of engine began to make more and more sense. One of the reasons that steam hung on as long as it did in Russia, China, and India is the lack of pollution laws.

So, FWIW, those are my top 5 reasons why the diesel won and steam lost.

 

[maczimb]

Steam is still used extensively in Zimbabwe.
The country is so screwed up that they don't have the foreign currency to purchase diesel fuel.
They still have vast coal reserves at a place called Wanki, not sure how to spell the current name. However, the coal mining equipment is falling apart and they may soon be in trouble in that area.
They use Bayer Garrett's from the 40's and 50's, I believe they still have a couple of 4-8-8-4's in service.
I originated from that part of the world.
Mac

 

[UP2CSX]

Poor Zimbabwe. There certainly were some injustices under Ian Smith when the country was Rhodesia but I wonder how many citizens, black and white, would rather see the Smith days again compared to the shambles the country has fallen into. To go from the second richest country in Africa to one of the poorest in 28 years is an awful disaster. The railroad system in Zimbabwe now is almost at a standstill since there are only about 40 serviceable locomotives left. Only the most vital supplies get moved by rail and then at an average speed of 10 mph because the track is in such bad condition. With an annual inflation rate of over 1,000% and virtually no foreign capital, the government is running out of money to print more money, let alone fix the railroads. Sad.

 

[brubakes]

but.... but... but.... steam is more fun to watch!

 

[Selector]

There is no question....steam and propellar driven aircraft do it for me. Jets and diesels are spiffy workhorses, but they just don't got it...know what ah mean?

All kidding aside, I believe the railroads' leaders had been losing market share to the newly affordable trucks and automobiles, plus even the airlines were making inroads. The railroads had to at least "look" progressive, and operating sleak diesels was one way to retain the gee whizz look. Also, they were in a position to retire some people, no lay-offs, and that would have been attractive over about a decade or so. You wouldn't need people to maintain, and in some cases operate, servicing facilities that were specialized for steamers, for example. Even a small reduction in workforce improves the bottom line greatly. Just ask any CFO.

-Crandell

 

[Switch Track]

Imackattack,

About a month ago my daughter and I watched a fascinating National Geographic episode on steam locomotives, which, BTW, resulted in my rushing headlong into this marvelous hobby. According to this program, the primary motivation of railroads switching from steam to diesel was financial. Steam locomotives are labor intensive. Their entire driving mechanisms have to be greased about every hundred miles of so. Moreover, they have to stop far more frequently for routine servicing. In contrast, diesel locomotives require only fuel. In other words, no additional personnel is required to shovel coal or pump oil. Fewer personnel are required to refuel many diesels, the result being greater profits!!!

I guess that with railroads, as in all other aspects of life, technology rules. I can remember my dad marveling over transistor radios. Now kids run around with iPods attached to themselves like appendages while somehow managing to respond to text messages all while boarding a jetliner for a few hours' trip that would have taken a steam locomotive days.

I hope the day never comes when trains become obsolete. But God knows, if CEO's can find ways to move freight less expensively and more efficiently...



Take care,

Tom

 

[Switch Track]

Selector,

I do know what you mean. While we both appreciate technology that has resulted in tremendous benefits to humanity, for me there is a pronounced romantic component of railroading, and only steam locomotives can create and nurture it. I do appreciate the technological advantages of diesel locomotives, and some are handsome, but steam locomotives stimulate much more than merely my intellect.


Take care,

Tom