| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Ed King article in Trains-pretty good. https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10739 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ed King article in Trains-pretty good. |
[quote="superheater"]I just read the King article in the newest? Issue of Trains on “Superpower†|
|
| Author: | Phil Mulligan [ Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ed King article in Trains-pretty good. |
I'm waiting to see the followups in Trains. In short, in 1941, diesel electrics could deliver speed and tractive effort, especially short-term, but were expensive and lacking in horsepower. The cover engine was the Big Boy, ostensably a failure; but UP was in on the ground floor of the diesel-electric (City streamliners), tested a steam turbine electric, ran gas turbine electrics, yet kept the 4000's in service into 1959. Somebody had good numbers on Big Boy. PRRTHS published 1943 Central Region tonnage ratings. J1's generally exceeded I1's by 10% or more and were allowed their full tonnage rating on "Arranged" freight trains. Power at speed. |
|
| Author: | whodom [ Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ed King article in Trains-pretty good. |
Quote: While I'm not willing to argue that diesels aren't better (i.e. lower total cost of ownership), I think the replacement cycle was greatly accelerated by forces other than economic superiority.
Great quote- this pretty much sums up my gut feeling about diesels too. David Wardale makes some very interesting observations on the process of dieselization in the U.S. in his book "The Red Devil and Other Tales from the Age of Steam". Railway management was notoriously conservative and diesels had a very short (and therefore in their eyes unproven) track record before wholesale dieselization began. In his view, there HAD to be more at work that the projected economics. He suggests that dieselization freed railway management of a huge intellectual burden- no longer did they need an in-house locomotive design staff, no longer did they have to carefully limit train size based on available motive power, no longer did they have to try to design motive power for specific services, no longer did they have to come up with their own operating and maintenance procedures, produce their own spare parts, or even maintain their own locomotives. EMD, ALCO, and GE to a large degree took over or eliminated the need for all this effort, and U.S. railways mostly jumped at the opportunity. Guess I'll have to go find this issue of Trains too. |
|
| Author: | Wooly [ Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ed King article in Trains-pretty good. |
I don't know why the Big Boy would be a failure in anybodys book. They were designed originaly to pull a 3600 ton train up Wahsatch unassisted which they did so well the tonnage rating was increased to 3800 tons plus every engine ran a 1,000,000 + miles in an 18 year span............Wooly |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|