Fellow (and lady) RyPN'ers:

One thing that seems to be popular on RyPN are threads such as "buried locomotives", "what should have been saved", etc. What I would like to know is what steam locomotive(s) you consider should NOT have existed. What comes to my mind are:

1. USATC 2-8-0 #610 built by Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton in November of 1952, apparently as a "new" design. Why at that late date? What was the Army thinking?

2. Department of Health, Education & Welfare 0-4-0T #4 built by Porter in 1950. When their old Baldwin 0-6-0T was due for replacement, the soon to be retired master mechanic (with only steam experience) convinced the director of St. Elizabeth's hospital in Washington, D.C. to order a new steam engine instead of a diesel!

I am NOT saying I am unhappy with the decisions to build these two engines, I am very glad they WERE built. But logic (in my opinion) says they shouldn't have been. Do you have any thoughts about any others?

midlandblb@cs.com

In regards to the Army steam, I'm pretty sure that part of their reasoning was a locomotive that needed basic maintenance, could be stored and after adding water and fuel (if it was a coal burner even wood would do) it would be up and running after a few hours. With a diesel in storage you would have to charge the batteries, find diesel fuel, etc. If I remember correctly the Swedish stored steam locomotives for an emergency just because of these reasons.

Another Army thing that went against practices at the time is equipping their hospital trains built during the Korean war with friction bearings instead of the roller bearings used on most streamilined passenger cars. The reason that I've heard is that roller bearings on railroad cars could develop flat spots on the rollers if they sat in the same spot over time. Anybody know more on this?

Richard

> Fellow (and lady) RyPN'ers:

> One thing that seems to be popular on RyPN
> are threads such as "buried
> locomotives", "what should have
> been saved", etc. What I would like to
> know is what steam locomotive(s) you
> consider should NOT have existed. What comes
> to my mind are:

> 1. USATC 2-8-0 #610 built by
> Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton in November of 1952,
> apparently as a "new" design. Why
> at that late date? What was the Army
> thinking?

> 2. Department of Health, Education &
> Welfare 0-4-0T #4 built by Porter in 1950.
> When their old Baldwin 0-6-0T was due for
> replacement, the soon to be retired master
> mechanic (with only steam experience)
> convinced the director of St. Elizabeth's
> hospital in Washington, D.C. to order a new
> steam engine instead of a diesel!

> I am NOT saying I am unhappy with the
> decisions to build these two engines, I am
> very glad they WERE built. But logic (in my
> opinion) says they shouldn't have been. Do
> you have any thoughts about any others?

The reason that I've heard is that
> roller bearings on railroad cars could
> develop flat spots on the rollers if they
> sat in the same spot over time. Anybody know
> more on this?

We hear this folklore from time to time. Roller bearings are perfectly happy to be stored motionless indefinitely, so far as carrying the load is concerned. There are many cases of preserved roller-bearing equipment being restored to service after decades of disuse with no work required other than a change of lubricant, assuming water has not penetrated the sealed bearing case. Not so with solid bearings in unsealed boxes, on which the exposed surface of the journal between the oil wick and the bearing corrodes very quickly if the equipment is not moved frequently.

Rules for storage of roller-bearing axles require that the bearings be rotated every six months, just to spread the lubricant over the working surfaces against humidity that may be inside the bearing case. In practice this has not proved necessary with historic equipment.

If you think about it, the static load on a stationary bearing is only a fraction of the dynamic loads it handles as the equipment works and bounces over irregularities, without flat spots or brinnelling.

Aarne H. Frobom
The Steam Railroading Institute
P. O. Box 665
Owosso, MI 48867

froboma@mdot.state.mi.us

> 2. Department of Health, Education &
> Welfare 0-4-0T #4 built by Porter in 1950.
> When their old Baldwin 0-6-0T was due for
> replacement, the soon to be retired master
> mechanic (with only steam experience)
> convinced the director of St. Elizabeth's
> hospital in Washington, D.C. to order a new
> steam engine instead of a diesel!

> I am NOT saying I am unhappy with the
> decisions to build these two engines, I am
> very glad they WERE built. But logic (in my
> opinion) says they shouldn't have been. Do
> you have any thoughts about any others?

I'm glad you're not unhappy that #4 was built. You WILL be happy to know that she is once again fully operational at the B&O Railroad Museum, and will be featured at their All Aboard Days in May.


B&O Railroad Museum
kevingillespie@usa.net

> 1. USATC 2-8-0 #610 built by
> Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton in November of 1952,
> apparently as a "new" design. Why
> at that late date? What was the Army
> thinking?

They may well have been thinking strategically. Steam locomotives were used rather late in Europe, later still in the Warsaw Pact countries, and still later in Asia. I think that the Army kept their steam program running as late as it did (into the late 1960's I have heard) in order to have people trained on them in case of war in a contry where they were still used.

Is it possible that the US would have been completely dieselized by 1950 if not for WWII? If memory serves, many railroads only ordered new steam in the '40s because the War Production Board put restrictions on diesel production. I guess you could say that with few exceptions, any steam built after 1941 should not have existed.

> Fellow (and lady) RyPN'ers:

> One thing that seems to be popular on RyPN
> are threads such as "buried
> locomotives", "what should have
> been saved", etc. What I would like to
> know is what steam locomotive(s) you
> consider should NOT have existed. What comes
> to my mind are:

> 1. USATC 2-8-0 #610 built by
> Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton in November of 1952,
> apparently as a "new" design. Why
> at that late date? What was the Army
> thinking?

> 2. Department of Health, Education &
> Welfare 0-4-0T #4 built by Porter in 1950.
> When their old Baldwin 0-6-0T was due for
> replacement, the soon to be retired master
> mechanic (with only steam experience)
> convinced the director of St. Elizabeth's
> hospital in Washington, D.C. to order a new
> steam engine instead of a diesel!

> I am NOT saying I am unhappy with the
> decisions to build these two engines, I am
> very glad they WERE built. But logic (in my
> opinion) says they shouldn't have been. Do
> you have any thoughts about any others?


davew833@yahoo.com

(1)The number of industrial diesels that GE built in 1941-1942 (if you go by the frame numbers) is very high.
(2) Good old American Aggregates could not get on the list for steam or diesel so they did the next best thing and built their own with ex-interurban stuff and diesel engines. The plant was a fascinating fab shop and the gang could do just about anything.
(3) WLE 384 was a late model steam loco (circa 1945) and maybe it was a master mechanics dream also.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

I would opine that steam was a known concept, parts were available, the infrastructure was strong. We were still in the battle years when one steam locomotive could out-haul 3 to four Diesels. No, I think steam got it's fair shot during the forties. I think high tech steam never got a fair shot since the Diesel promised to limit support staff, buildings and maintainance facilities. I think railroads phased steam out too rapidly, particularly in the case of the N&W, the NYC Niagara, and perhaps the U.P. Bigboys and Chessie Alleghenies. Rebuilt with state-of-engineering components, they might have seen service well into the late 60's and early 70's.
You want a couple of locos that should never have been invented? Try the GP-7 and the F-7! (Do I sound prejudiced here?)

glueck@saturn.caps.maine.edu

My favorite example of steam vs. diesel is the Lakeside and Marblehead. Something like 6 steamers replaced by two diesels. Turn the switch and go, it really surprised those folks. This may sound brutal but if someone could look at total manhours/ton mile for a railroad I believe it would show why diesels went over big. In this time period class 1's did a lot of specialized railroading from way freights to high speed passenger and the GP7-F7 concept of add more when you need 'em saved buying specialized equipment. As the RR's got rid of passenger service and most local customers and aimed for big mainline trains along came the big power. It is fun to watch the RR's scramble for 4axle power to handle what little local service they have. My favorite steamers are the Niagara and NKP Berks. Great locos and right on the edge of costs comparable to diesel if the rest of the steam infrastructure was in place, but losers as a stand alone.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

One "rule of thumb" that I've heard is that if you need one steamer you really need three steam locomotives to cover the job: One to be using, one in the repair shop, and the third as spare in case the one being used breaks down.

There is the story that when a British gravel quarry came to EMD for a switch engine that asked for three units. When EMD asked about the operation they found that only one was needed--the firm was applying the 3 for one job rule that was used for steam (and British diesels). EMD convinced the firm to buy only one unit. One unit was all that was needed because of the reliability of the EMD product.

Brian Norden



bnorden49@earthlink.net

Brian:

Your story is likely true for most steam locomotives, but some gains had been made in U.S. locomotive construction practice by the 40's. Cast bed frames & roller bearings went a long ways to improve steam reliability. The fact that British home-built diesels were virtually no more reliable than their steam lends some credence to the argument that steam wasn't inherently hugely less reliable than diesel-electrics. To a large extent, even the best steam designs were never brought up to the engineering standards used in other fields, such as aircraft or power plants. If the steam designers had concentrated more on developing thoroughly reliable, maintainable steam locomotives (complete with things like operating and maintenance manuals), they might have had more of a fighting chance against their diesel competitors.

Hugh Odom

> One "rule of thumb" that I've
> heard is that if you need one steamer you
> really need three steam locomotives to cover
> the job: One to be using, one in the repair
> shop, and the third as spare in case the one
> being used breaks down.

> There is the story that when a British
> gravel quarry came to EMD for a switch
> engine that asked for three units. When EMD
> asked about the operation they found that
> only one was needed--the firm was applying
> the 3 for one job rule that was used for
> steam (and British diesels). EMD convinced
> the firm to buy only one unit. One unit was
> all that was needed because of the
> reliability of the EMD product.

> Brian Norden


the Ultimate Steam Page
whodom@awod.com

Hi,

Parts interchangeabilty would have been a great help for steam locomotives in my opinion.

Stuart

Help Save the NC 87!!
gnufe@apex.net

Two big selling points for diesels as they became commercially available, and which really go the attention of upper UPRR management was:

1. Labor. The shops at Cheyenne went from 5,000 working 3 shifts to like 50 or so after the complete Dieselization.

2. Water. When you go from litterally millions of gallons a day, plus the chemical treatments down to a mere minute fraction of that in a semi-arid region, that's something.

Railroads are and were in the business to make money and keep the shareholders happy. If one RR dieselized, then they all had to. You can't compete otherwise.

I have heard it said that the diesel saved the railroad from oblivion. I'm sure this is debateable, but I subsribe to this notion. I think steam couldn't simply compete with the economics of a diesel. Sure, there were potential refinements that could have been made to steam to improve it, but as much as a diesel? I'm sure today's diesel oriented generations find it odd for an excursion locomotive to be serviced so often, but that was the name of the game.

God Bless,
Gerald Kopiasz

> Two big selling points for diesels as they
> became commercially available, and which
> really go the attention of upper UPRR
> management was:

> 1. Labor. The shops at Cheyenne went from
> 5,000 working 3 shifts to like 50 or so
> after the complete Dieselization.

> 2. Water. When you go from litterally
> millions of gallons a day, plus the chemical
> treatments down to a mere minute fraction of
> that in a semi-arid region, that's
> something.

> Railroads are and were in the business to
> make money and keep the shareholders happy.
> If one RR dieselized, then they all had to.
> You can't compete otherwise.


hrrhs@aol.com

2 words........ Labor Intensive. Steam was and still is, those 2 words. As much as I love steam, it was, and still is, truely costly to opperate.

Randyja1@aol.com