I hope this isn't off topic too much -
I'd like to know is which steam locomotive was economically the best attempt to forestall the Diesel invasion? In other words, which steam loco design might have been able to compete efficiently and economically against those first generation invaders from EMD, ALCO, Baldwin, FM, etc.? Please note that I'm not talking about infrastructure, such as parts, coal supplies etc. Assuming thos ewere all in place, which locomotive would the national fleet have aspired to?

glueck@maine.edu

I don't think there is such a magic bullet.

Consider the Santa Fe running through all that desert- even if a diesel didn't have the great advantages-the mere fact that it didn't need millions of gallons of water piped/transported to remote places and stored just ended the argument.

Secondly assume that we do make that simplified comparison, what are you going to use a particular engine for? When steam was king, the big 3 produced custom-designed special purpose machines in small batches. Because of the flexibility of the diesel EMD could build "mass quantities" and lower costs. It didn't much matter whether an F or a GP ran in the mountains or the plains-only minor changes such as gearing were necessary. The same design was banged out in hundreds or thousands instead of 10's or hundreds.

The N&W understood this well and attempted to standardize. Steam is such an inherently special purpose engine however that they needed four very different engines to move the goods.(o-8-0's, 4-8-4's, 2-8-8-2's and 2-6-6-4's- not counting the 4-8-0's in branch service and left over designs such as the 4-8-2's)

Of the four core tasks (switching, passenger, coal drag/pusher or fast freight, respectively)
done by the Swichers, J's, Y's and A's any could be done with a single pool of GP-9's and F's (for appearance sake on passenger)- although they did diversify with other makers engines.

Of course standardization of parts and procedures saves money. The problem with steam is that it is INHERENTLY a special purpose machine. Even

The great management theorist Peter Drucker once made a point that probably applies well with the transition. He stated that for one technology to displace another it can't be 10% better, it has to be 10 TIMES better.

Ok, this is treason in some quartrers-sorry.

superheater@beer.com

Not sure of the answer to your question, possibly one of the experimentals, or even a foreign design (like the garrett).

The end of steam was probably inevitable. there were two powerful forces at work against it, social and economic. It was only inertia on the part of the management and vested interest of the various labor crafts that forestalled it as long as it did. Stop to think about it, steam power -- for the most part-- had left the farms almost 20 years before it got phased out on the railroads.

Steam IS labor intensive, it also requires more preparatory time before use, and supervision when it is "idling". Both time and manpower are $$$

Then, of course, was the popular "progress" concept that modern=good, and historic=quaint/not as good. Picture all those moneyed customers flocking first to abandon the dirty old steam train to ride behind the modern clean diesel (and then on to those cattle cars with wings)

Sad, isn't it?

The answer is on Hugh Odom's ULTIMATE STEAM PAGE and is in development tooday thanks to engineers like Porta, Wardale, etc.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> The answer is on Hugh Odom's ULTIMATE STEAM
> PAGE and is in development tooday thanks to
> engineers like Porta, Wardale, etc.

> Dave i think the best in the larger size is n&w #2300 ie jawn henry. it would not have taken much to work the bugs out. in the smaller sizes the sentinal in by far the best design.


staybolt2@netscape.net

As I recall NKP tested its Berkshires against F-3's and the 2-8-4's proved more economical for the job. This led to an order for more Berkshires.

RDG tested an E-7 on Main Line passenger trains in 1947, and chose to build the G-3 4-6-2's in 1948.

Finally, a Penn Central friend said found PRR statistics from the NY&LB in the 1950's where the K-4's were cheaper to operate than the resident diesels (then BLW BP20's) EXCEPT for overhauls. I found him credible as he was in a position to see the actual study.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> As I recall NKP tested its Berkshires
> against F-3's and the 2-8-4's proved more
> economical for the job. This led to an order
> for more Berkshires.

> RDG tested an E-7 on Main Line passenger
> trains in 1947, and chose to build the G-3
> 4-6-2's in 1948.

> Finally, a Penn Central friend said found
> PRR statistics from the NY&LB in the
> 1950's where the K-4's were cheaper to
> operate than the resident diesels (then BLW
> BP20's) EXCEPT for overhauls. I found him
> credible as he was in a position to see the
> actual study.

I think if you have a look at the comparison studies between the NYC 6000 series 4-8-4 engines and the 3 unit E-8 sets purchased, you will see that the costs per 100 miles were cheaper for the steam than for diesel, and yes, the 6000's were more than an equal match for 3 E- units.

> I think if you have a look at the comparison
> studies between the NYC 6000 series 4-8-4
> engines and the 3 unit E-8 sets purchased,
> you will see that the costs per 100 miles
> were cheaper for the steam than for diesel,
> and yes, the 6000's were more than an equal
> match for 3 E- units.

Trying not to delve into politics, but the main things that killed the steam locomotive were their high labor costs, high maintenance costs, and the coal strikes of the 1950s. (The cheap cost of coal v.s. diesel is what in part gives steamers the edge.)

I have unintentionally become involved the debate regarding steam pumps at the plant I am doing contract labor for. (More in a future message or brief.) They are looking at replacing the remaining pumps for the following reasons:

1. High maintenance costs. Because they sit up in reserve most of the time, coming online only during emergencies; they have to endure long periods of storage before being called upon; during that time, chemicals inside or dripping on them have caused them to seize up.

Going back to the steam v.s. diesel discussion; on most roads TWO steam locomotives were required to replace one diesel of equivalent pulling power. This is due to the long steam-up times, and long periods for heavy maintenance and overhauls. They spent much larger precentage of the operating lives steaming up or under maintenance.

N&W and the NYC showed that it was possible to reduce running maintenance times considerably using run-througph facilities and hot working on the boiler, but it was still dirty, dangerous, and labor-intensive work; and long outages for heavy overhaul of the boilers was still required.

2. Lack of operator training. Steam pumps require opening the correct sequence of valves to properely drain the steam cylinder and get the pump running. To some of them, running running them is as much guesswork or "black magic" as it is a procedure.

Returning to the steam locomotive example; switching to diesels allowed for the fireman's position to be eliminated. While automated firing systems may help; steam locomotive running was still as much an art as it was a procedure. It was also hot and dirty; nowhere near as easy as pushing a lever and buttons in an air conditioned diesel locomotive cab.

It is my understanding that the "Red Devil" in South Africa was not as successfull as it should have been was because it's firebox required a different method of firing than conventional locomotives. While training would have helped, firing steam locomotives is still a black art. (Some British steam fans once showed the Sri Lankans how to fire their locomotives properely, and enabled steam tourist trains to be ran.)

Finally, it was my understanding that one of the things that finally ended steam on the N&W was a lack of steam accessories. While the N&W built their own steam locomotives, they purchased parts such as air pumps from outside suppliers; as the last mainline road running steam, these parts became more difficult to purchase.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

> It would be fascinating reading...

Is there anywhere somebody can read these studies/comparisons?


Spuerheater@beer.com

The fellow who described the PRR study has passed on and I don't know where the study got to.

At the time, the CNJ was using (then new) FM TrainMasters and paired GP-7's on NY&LB trains to good effect while PRR's BP20's had performance issues compared to the K4s. PRR had tested an Alco APS24ms which did the job but in fact they did not buy new commuter diesels but ran the K4s' until more diesels became available from the Main Line.


Electric City Trolley Museum Association