No ebook available on google books. Cheapest copy I could find was $35.

Before I spend $35 I want to know if it is worth it.

What does the book cover of the American development and its application to locomotives?

Thanks for bringing this book to my attention.

Steve

From this website comes a photo:

http://www.sdrm.org/roster/diesel/emd/h ... 3fair.html



"The U.S. Navy had been following this 2 cycle development work and had given Winton a design contract for a "V" 12 cylinder engine which was designed concurrently with the 8 cylinder. These engines were known as the Model 201 and had a fabricated steel crankcase, one of the first in this country."

Steve

[Awesome and thank you. I have a buddy living near Washington D.C. and I'm prodding him to go to Fort Eustice and the Army Transportation Museum to research Military Railway Service (MRS) records to see what the purchase records were during WW II.]

No one should get his hopes up too high when planning a visit to the Transportation Museum at Fort Eustis to do research. (It's actually now part of Joint Base Langley-Eustis.) There are limits to what they have on their shelves, probably more than one might expect. Rather than doing a six-hour round trip to JBLE, only to return disappointed, someone living in the DC area should start instead at the National Archives in nearby College Park, MD.

Where is P. Cook when we need him?

Interesting that this discussion has focused on the development of the Winton 201 engines. As I understand the history, the Winton design eventually evolved into the Cleveland 248 and 278 diesels for marine applications. Railroad applications of the Winton engines was limited to a few early streamliners and switchers. I'm not aware that the Cleveland engines ever were applied for railroad use. GM apparently developed the 567 specifically for Railroad applications, although it did also find some marine application during WW-II (Perhaps in LST landing craft?)

The other diesel engine developed for submarines was the Fairbanks-Morse 38-8-1/2, which late in the war was successfully adopted for locomotive use.
As an earlier poster remarked, Preston Cook would be a good source for more specific information.
Dan Rohrback

I suspect you are correct but how difficult would it be to locate WW II diesel locomotive purchase records of the Army in the National Archives ?

Steve

From this website is the reproduction of a Navy submarine manual from 1946:

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/diesel/chap1.htm

"The need for more powerful engines became apparent with the development of the fleet type submarine. The three engines that seemed to fulfill submarine requirements were the Winton V-type, now known as the General Motors engine; the Fairbanks-Morse opposed piston type; and the Hooven-Owen-Rentschler double-acting type engine. Of these, the HOR was later removed from submarines in favor of the General Motors and Fairbanks-Morse engines which are now the two standard submarine engines.

At the present time, the General Motors Corporation manufactures 16-cylinder, single-acting engines rated at 1600 brake horsepower (bhp) for main engine installations, and 8-cylinder engines for auxiliary installations. Fairbanks Morse and Company manufactures 9- and 10-cylinder, opposed piston engines rated at 1600 bhp for main engine installations, and 7-cylinder, opposed piston engines for auxiliary installations. These engines have proved most efficient. They weigh as little as 15 to 20 pounds per bhp including auxiliary equipment. Standardizing on only two designs has also made it possible to mass produce engines with a minimum amount of delay and difficulty."

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/diesel/chap3.htm

"
3A1. Introduction. All of the present fleet type submarines are equipped with engines manufactured either by the Cleveland Diesel Engine Division, General Motors Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, or by Fairbanks, Morse and Company, Beloit, Wisconsin. These engines have been in the process of development for the past several years, and the latest models proved highly dependable under wartime operating conditions.

Before World War II, these engines were used almost exclusively on submarines. With the expansion of the Navy, however, these engines have also been used on destroyer escorts, amphibious craft, escort type patrol vessels, and various auxiliary craft . . .

3A2. General Motors engines.Two models of GM main engines are found in fleet type submarines today, Model 16-248 and Model 16-278A. The former was installed exclusively in General Motors engine equipped vessels until early in 1943 when Model 16-278A was introduced. All General Motors installations since that time have been Model 16-278A engines (Figures 1-10 and 1-11). Basically the two models are similar. The principal differences are in the size and design of the parts, methods of construction, and type of metals used. In the following chapters all references are based on the current Model 16-278A. Important differences between the two models, however, will be noted.

The GM engine is a 16-cylinder V-type engine with 2 banks of 8 cylinders each The engine operates on the 2-stroke cycle principle, is air started, and is rated at 1600 bhp at 750 rpm. The size of the bore and stroke of the 16-248 engine is 8 1/2 inches and 10 1/2 inches respectively as compared to 8 3/4 inches and 10 1/2 inches for Model 16-278A."



Also from this site:

http://www.sdrm.org/roster/diesel/emd/h ... 3fair.html

E.W. Kettering, Chief Engineer, EMD
History and Development of the 567 Series General Motors Locomotive Engine
Presented before the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
November 29, 1951

I will search for this book also:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/history-a ... lc/8175750

It seems that the University of Chicago has a copy. Back for another inter-library loan request.


Steve

As I posted in another thread, I have received this book through an inter-library loan and it doesn't support the view that the government caused Baldwin to fall behind EMD due to WW II controls.





Steve

As far as the transition from steam to diesel is concerned, I think it is self evident that the advantages then as now of diesel power versus steam speak for themselves. Unfortunately. If given a choice I would chose otherwise. The roads tied to the coal industry gave steam what could be considered a counter-intuitive technological push that could not overcome the economics of both the roads future as stand alones against the tide of transition proving cost savings and the dire need to economise in the fierce competition against two much stronger postwar trends, the airlines and federally subsidised road building. The optimistic futurism of that time was an undercurrent and steam was portrayed very effectively by GM as a wave of the past. The inference was also applicable to Baldwin and Alco as far as being tagged at the onset.
As far as Baldwin is concerned, they were old school philosophers largely distracted by still focusing and stressing doing custom jobs based on selling steam on any roads specific needs and stressing long term durability at a time when EMD was capitalising on "Fordisation" in the opposite direction of standard units like building blocks. Even the Baldwin frames took their cue from steam and were built like tanks. As an end result, they ended up with a lot of what could be considered more of experiments than standard models. Their paradigm was too ingrained. I think their efforts, in hindsight were doomed from the onset. All of this contrasts with Baldwin building some of the earliest diesel units.
Alco seemed to give it more of a fighting chance of success but being in a minority position once the automotive guys got into steel wheels put them in a position of having to make the argument of being a superior product while trying to sell the idea that also helped to kill steam, the necessity of roads to carry two different sets of maintenance programs and Alcos seemed to get the short shrift of proper maintenance outside of roads that focused on them.
Both Baldwin and Alco were hampered by their simply being in the market for a significant amount of time with a recognised history of parallel successes, while EMD had no such baggage as far as innovation.
In the end, trending has nothing to do with conspiracy, and if the streetcar conspiracy were true, perhaps we would not being seeing such a stark upsurge in rebuilding those systems. I honestly think no one got a leg up that ultimately determined how the market fell out in terms of competition which there was..between the three for what could be reasonably considered a significant amount of time. Each manufacturing and selling philosophy could be considered intangible company assets or a out of touch deficit that sooner than later dooms them to failure.
Even venturing into foreign markets was going against hope once the die was cast by EMD success. If you want a modern example look at GE who single handedly clobbered EMD once it brought itself into the market with superior packaging. If there was a leg up, it badly stumbled against GE. The newcomer versus the older newcomer.
The same pattern is repeated. Conspiracy or undue advantage? I think not.
Hilton said the issue and downfall of the interurban industry was the failure and recognition too late in coming to forecast trends and accordingly adjust their paradigms. Its no different for the history of the diesel / steam builders.

Not to get too far off-topic, but some would disagree with you. ;-)

From the concluding paragraphs of "The Economic Results of Diesel and Electric Motive Power on the Railways of the United States of America" by H.F. Brown, Ph.B., Fellow A.I.E.E, published 5 November 1961:

"This study simply states that the all-embracing economies claimed for diesel motive power on the class I railways of the United States, as a whole, do not appear in the statistical record.

The diesel locomotive has not ‘revolutionized’ American railway economics. In road service, diesel motive power has added to the financial burden of the railways. "

The entire paper is downloadable from the 5AT Group Website at:

http://5at.co.uk/uploads/Articles%20and ... motive.pdf

Entire textbooks have been written about how and why people embrace "conspiracy theories," and discussing this gets way too far off of rail preservation/history and into psychology, sociology, etc. (My favorite: Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer.)

The short version: People, when confronted with change or events of which they disapprove or disbelieve, tend to embrace paradigms that promote simplistic reason and cause for such events and establish a scapegoat or "force of evil," especially when the event/change is in reality due to a huge compendium of reasons and forces not easily embraced or understood. We see this carried out daily in social and political discourse--the "sound bite" over the lengthy dissertation that is ultimately inconclusive. In railroading, we see this in "The Great National City Lines Conspiracy" and similar "conspiracies" espoused by some railfans about GM "forcing" railroads to buy their diesels or they would take away their lucrative auto production traffic. You will see similar mentality at work in looking at passenger traffic decline, in Britain's "Beeching Report" (50 years ago this month), and in pointing at ICC regulation or mismanagement for the railroad industry's woes throughout the middle part of the 20th century. Railfans relate almost exclusively to how the locomotives look and sound grinding or chugging uphill or whipping by at speed, and have basically no interest in the far more important factor of GE offering more favorable financing terms for their products than EMD, or EMD offering better customer support than Alco or Baldwin. That, and the old "sticking up for the underdog" so popular to human behavior, results in people foaming over Baldwins and F-M's while ignoring the long-lived, hearty, resourceful SD40-2 interchanging with them.

I don't think the still debated transition from steam to diesel is off topic as the gist of the thread is the perceived advantages of selling this versus that. I was really addressing the marketing and product line aspect of the history at that time in relation to one versus another having a competitive advantage. To me it's very similar to perhaps the question of the Reich's advanced aeronautical designs given one more year of development. George Marshal said the Allies did not win the war, the Axis lost it. Time in that example versus the topic at hand was of the essence. The cost savings of diesel were well documented by the users, which became a viral flood of momentum. If anything the capability of diesels to run multiple units by MU is reason enough.,Another is bye bye to the fireman. Its not that complex. Look at the infrastructure needed for steam as an employment cost and just how many costs and jobs vanished with the onset of the diesel era.
If is always a good question to pose. Technologically, I think the principles were there to make steam competitive but they lacked the plug and play control systems, the synthetic materials we have now, etc.
The history of turbines on the road underscores this as the improvements to the PRR example were already patented but time ran out. Pulverised coal versus wear etc remained unresolved. Instead of being in a stage of further development the diesel boys already had the package. There was no viable steam alternative. That was then and this is now. Who knows? That portion of steam versus diesel been debated ad nauseum because no one wants to put cash on the barrel head to resolve the debate. And so it goes.

This happens all the time in forums when a rookie (Like myself) brings up a topic that is "ad nauseum" for old timers.

My current task is complicated by Mr. Churella and his Whitcomb history/footnotes. Some are not correct.

I just received one of his cited sources and it contains absolutely nothing about Whitcomb. I'll post it since it is an excellent source on Baldwin diesel development (Baldwin Locomotives magazine Feb. 1940) and show where Churella cited this magazine for Whitcomb history. It only contains a Whitcomb add.

The magazine is not available on the net nor through libraries and I spent $15 on ebay for a dead end as far as Whitcomb research goes.

Steve

For me, the best source for the inside story on Baldwin's diesel era is Volume Three of "The Diesel Builders:Baldwin Locomotive Works " written by John F Kirkland, the former Superintendent of Locomotive Production as well as his wearing of several other hats there. It was published by Interurban Press.

I don't think the issue about any form of manipulative marketmandering is needed to explain the transition; bruce has it pretty well explained - but as to why and how it happened with the rapidity it did.....writing off modern steam power even before it was completely broken in, much less depreciated - that's another matter. Back in my college days I read an engineering text from about 1949 in which the author explained that the transition from steam to diesel electric was inevitable and the last mainline steam would be replaced by diesel when the steam was completely depreciated in the mid to late 1970's........so, it is entirely conceivable that some form of economic and political manipulation was engaged in to force the hastening that transition by 2 decades.

Nothing has changed.....

dave