There are a couple of threads below, some employing rather sophisticated financial reasoning-that make a qualitative case that steam may have been prematurely ended.

In all the years of reading how the decision was made at various railroads, the case for diesels is always stated qualitatively. Almost nobody translates this into dollars and cents.

However, any qualitative advantage must be translated into clear economic advantage. For example, lets assume that coal cost 1/2 what it actually did in 1955-65, while diesel prices remained the same. You can bet that Y's, A's and J's would've roamed around the N&W into at least the early 60's and likely other late converters (NKP, etc)might have similarly rather chose to fight than switch. THe ultimate reality is unless an asset's technical advantages form the basis for a decided economic advantage, (Peter Drucker put this in perspective by saying that for one technology to supplant another it has to be 10 times more efficient, not 10%) it must generate additional profits to justify the investment in capital and transition costs. We are left to wonder whether Pennsy and N&W were crazy in sticking w/ steam or did they no something other roads didn't? Pennsy of course was famous for its rigorous analyses of everything they bought!

That having been said, I have heard the NYC conducted some kind of cost accounting/financial analysis of operating costs between and EMD F and a Niagara. If I recall correctly, it was pretty even.-Not at all an example of what Drucker talked about, yet obviously, most NYC steam is gone.

Certainly, there are some factors that might have precluded the use of what is now everyday financial analysis, most especially the lack of financial calculators/spreadsheets that put complex math into the hands of the masses-but it seems to me there surely must have been at least a couple of analyses expressed in quantitative terms that really killed steam. I could even see some roads doing it based upon some other road's analysis-if it was convincing enough.

If anybody knows where I might find analysis that was done by the railroads,I would appreciate directions on where to read.

> There are a couple of threads below, some
> employing rather sophisticated financial
> reasoning-that make a qualitative case that
> steam may have been prematurely ended.

> In all the years of reading how the decision
> was made at various railroads, the case for
> diesels is always stated qualitatively.
> Almost nobody translates this into dollars
> and cents.

There were things that affected the decision to
go to diesel that are hard to put on a spread sheet. I too would like to see what figures supported the decicions. Since the cost per ton mile figures that I have seen didn't show any
impressive difference, there had to be other things slanting the decision.
One element that may have been weighed in is the
fact tht there is an inherent difference between
the steam locomotive and the diesel. The diesel's
final drive is an electric motor and an electric motor has its highest torque at starting speeds.
This is what gives it its ability to start such heavy trains.
The steam locomotive had low torgue at starting speed. But if it could get a train moving it could go on out and make time with it.On the other hand the diesel torque curve falls off and depending on the gearing, it will fall below the steam locomotive torque curve somewhere in the 30 to 40 MPH area.
When I explained this to one engineer he remarked that that explained why it took him about 20 minutes longer to come from Carbondale to Centralia with diesels than it did with steam
pulling the same weight train.
The jurisdictional rules that governed who did
what also hurt the steam locomotive. I like the example of the steam powered dynamo. To remove it a pipe fitter and his helper came out and removed the steam pipe. An electrician and his helper came out and unhooked the wiring. A machinist and his helper came out and loosened the bolts that held it to the boiler. A laborer, his helper and
a crane operator came out, picked it up and set it on the ground. And no body had beter do anyone else's work.
In addition to all this the steam locomotive was
very labor intensive what with the coal chute,the
water testers,fire cleaners, hostlers,inspectors,
and so on.
During WW2 a Supt. of Motive Power on the Santa Fe
told me that in the desert area every third train had to be a water train and it was hampering their handling of war time taffic. He brought the diesels they owned at that time to that area and
removed the steamers to areas where water wasn't a problem. By doing this they were able to handle that heavy traffic thru that division.
That's some of the factors. I don't know how you put a dollar figure on them but they weighed heavily in the final decision.
Jim

> However, any qualitative advantage must be
> translated into clear economic advantage.
> For example, lets assume that coal cost 1/2
> what it actually did in 1955-65, while
> diesel prices remained the same. You can bet
> that Y's, A's and J's would've roamed around
> the N&W into at least the early 60's and
> likely other late converters (NKP, etc)might
> have similarly rather chose to fight than
> switch. THe ultimate reality is unless an
> asset's technical advantages form the basis
> for a decided economic advantage, (Peter
> Drucker put this in perspective by saying
> that for one technology to supplant another
> it has to be 10 times more efficient, not
> 10%) it must generate additional profits to
> justify the investment in capital and
> transition costs. We are left to wonder
> whether Pennsy and N&W were crazy in
> sticking w/ steam or did they no something
> other roads didn't? Pennsy of course was
> famous for its rigorous analyses of
> everything they bought!

> That having been said, I have heard the NYC
> conducted some kind of cost
> accounting/financial analysis of operating
> costs between and EMD F and a Niagara. If I
> recall correctly, it was pretty even.-Not at
> all an example of what Drucker talked about,
> yet obviously, most NYC steam is gone.

> Certainly, there are some factors that might
> have precluded the use of what is now
> everyday financial analysis, most especially
> the lack of financial
> calculators/spreadsheets that put complex
> math into the hands of the masses-but it
> seems to me there surely must have been at
> least a couple of analyses expressed in
> quantitative terms that really killed steam.
> I could even see some roads doing it based
> upon some other road's analysis-if it was
> convincing enough.

> If anybody knows where I might find analysis
> that was done by the railroads,I would
> appreciate directions on where to read.


rrfanjim@mvn.net

Another factor was the infrastructure. To put a locomotive like the Big Boy over the line required a complete track and structure rebuild. With a Diesel the footprint stayed the same but the number of feet changed as required. Of course the RR's underestimated the track maintenence required and let the system deteriorate.
Yet another factor was the "cookie cutter" production of the diesel. No longer did the dictates of the mechanical department determine locomotive design. You ordered what was in the catalog.
With the standardization of equipment you could now take a locomotive past division points (remember those) and run the same equipment across country only stopping to change crews. The equipment standardization meant the equipment could be repaired just about anywhere.
And despite all this a major factor had to have been the tremendous reduction of maintenance manpower. Again a munber you will not find is the breakdown of man hours necessary to get one ton of freight over the line.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

A friend had worked in Penn Central's passenger department. They still had some of PRR's records on the North Jersey Coast from the 1950's [no, I don't know where they are now] and at that time the K4's cost less to operate than the BP20 diesels they had there at the time, until you factored maintenance.



The Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> In all the years of reading how the decision
> was made at various railroads, the case for
> diesels is always stated qualitatively.
> Almost nobody translates this into dollars
> and cents.

It may just be a function of what's available for you to read, Bernie. If it's stories in fan magazines (where most of us get our insight on the decision), three pages of financial analysis that replaced three pages of photos, statistics, and personal reminiscences would probably have gotten David Morgan fired. Fans want to see Lloyd Stagner's knee-deep technical minutiae or R. A. La Massena's prose or Dick Kindig's great photos, not the CFO's assumptions on traffic projections and the Board of Directors' argument about the appropriate Internal Rate of Return and the Do Nothing Option.

Don't assume from that that businesses didn't do this type of analysis prior to the invention of the IBM PC XT and SuperCalc. (SuperCalc did nothing more than recreate, in software, the types of calculations done by hand by scores of employees on "spread sheets.") Engineering Economics has been around for a long time, and when I studied it we used printed paper tables and pencils, not computers. (OK, I'm not THAT old - we did have HP calculators that cost more than Palm Pilots do today. ;-)

Using a buzzword, "total life cycle cost" of a steam locomotive - especially a hand-fired 2-8-0 built in 1903, but even a great locomotive design like the N&W A 2-6-6-4 - was much higher than that of a diesel on almost any reasonable comparison basis (e.g. horsepower-hour, gross-ton-miles-per-train-hour, etc.) Do away with steam and you eliminate backshops, coaling towers, the entire Water Service department, the taxes on all those buildings you can now tear down, and the hundreds and thousands of firemen, boilermakers, pipefitters, machinists, etc., and the FELA and RRB payments the railroads were making. In a business where labor was over 50% of operating costs, cutting 1/3 of your work force reaped huge gains.

Sorry, but the analysis - though it may not be easy to find today - was done, it was right, and the changeover would have come a lot sooner if WWII hadn't intervened. To be sure individual railroads would have continued to operate some steam - just like short lines, faced with the high first cost of acquiring a diesel and putting in fuel storage ran their steam engines until the cost of a boiler overhaul or a cracked cylinder made the diesel the cheaper immediate expenditure.

> THe ultimate reality is unless an
> asset's technical advantages form the basis
> for a decided economic advantage, (Peter
> Drucker put this in perspective by saying
> that for one technology to supplant another
> it has to be 10 times more efficient, not
> 10%) it must generate additional profits to
> justify the investment in capital and
> transition costs.

Not really. There are two sides to the balance sheet - and capital-intensive businesses, which have a higher ratio of fixed to variable costs, look much harder for improvements in operating costs than they do for big jumps in revenue. Why? The risk of failure is lower (at worst, you don't save any money, and you aren't spending millions to provide a service folks won't buy). The results are less stellar than the thousand percent you reference, but more obtainable. (If businesses really followed that rule, we'd still be building canals and log roads, and walking or riding horses to the Post Office, not driving SUV's on concreted and macadam and linking to the Internet over DSL. Most businesses will jump at a 10% reduction in costs.)

And THAT's where the justification was made. A railroad's customer's didn't (and don't) care whether their freight is hauled behind RS-1s, SD90MACs, 2-6-0s or 4-8-8-4s, so they won't pay a premium (i.e. additional profit) for steam haulage. But a railroad could charge the same for haulage behind diesels, and spend a LOT less getting the freight there.

Can you find "comparisons" that show steam was as cost-effective as diesels? Sure - lots of 'em. They tend to look only at incremental costs (i.e. fuel, crew, etc.) and ignore that 2190 just came out of the shops after three weeks of work, and will need to go back in in three months time, etc. It's a snapshot of a small piece of the pie.

Why? All involved often had a vested interest in the status quo - labor didn't want massive job cuts, the Engineering department knew everything about steam and nothing about diesels, etc. They didn't "rig" the tests - just defined them in a way that made steam look good.

Look at the overall view and there's no comparison.

All that said, a diesel will never come close to stirring the soul like a steam locomotive at full cry. They truly are man's most human creation.

JAC

> Look at the overall view and there's no
> comparison.

> All that said, a diesel will never come
> close to stirring the soul like a steam
> locomotive at full cry. They truly are man's
> most human creation.

Just for "fun", if one were so inclined, one could play out a present-day version of the calculation in a small way using any of our tourist railroads as a test case. Look at the cost per passenger-mile for say, running steam on the Valley Railroad or the Strasburg, fully allocating the labor costs, and then compare to what it would cost to produce the same passenger-miles with a GP-9. (Yes of course, people come for the steam, and so switching to diesel would cause the passenger-miles to plummet, but the point of the execise would be to compare out-of-pocket costs assuming demand for service holds constant).

If the GP-9 doesn't win hands down I'll eat my hat, complete with the ground-in cinders from WMSRR 734 that riddle the wool in the thing.

eledbetter@rypn.org

A magazine (I am trying to remember the name of it; it was sent free to me as an engineering graduate by General Motors) had an excellent article on the conquest of steam by diesel. It is History Magazine of Science and Technology.

IIRC, another, hard-to-pin-down factor that helped usher in steam locomotives were the coal strikes of the 1950s. It has been mentioned elsewhere about the practically free fuel of steam locomotives on the coal hauling roads; the tender was often filled right along with the rest of the train!

I believe the reasoning was that the strikes were causing interruptions in the supply of coal as a source of fuel. Diesel oil has no such strikes to contend with; so it made it a more attractive fuel source.

I agree that a steam locomotive burning oil is a lot more expensive to run than a diesel running on diesel fuel. (The need to supply water, the added labor, poor energy conversion efficiency, etc.) I believe another factor was the Bunker C oil used as fuel by many of the oil burning steam locomotives also went up in price, as other by-products such as plastics began to compete for the oil feedstock.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

> Dear Erik:
You are so correct.
I haven't the time to "run the numbers" for you, but I will give you a couple that ought to wake up some folks: at Valley Railroad we budget $35,000.00 per year, per steam locomotive for routine maintenance, supplies, hostling, etc. This number does not include fuel and water, operating staff or the overhead of cost to run the shop itself. To this must be added the cost of major repairs and major maintenance such as reflueing, wheel turning, etc.
The "standard" diesel locomotive at the Valley is the GE 80 ton centercab. We have one built in 1947 and another (not quite in service yet) built in 1937. These are antiques themselves. Our yearly budget for diesel maintenance is $1500.00 and sometimes we don't spend that much. Admittedly, the diesels don't put in as many miles as do the steam, but they are available for service nearly 100%, unlike the steam.
We burn rather expensive coal (about $95.00/ton delivered and on the ground), about 3.5 tons per day. The diesel uses less than 50 gallons of diesel fuel per day doing the same work.
Recommended reading: "Technomorphology and the Stephenson Traction System" by M.C.Duffy, Transactions of the Newcomen Society Vol.54 (1982-83) and of course "The Red Devil and Other Tales of the Age of Steam" by David Wardale (in its' second printing). These really get to the heart of why the steam locomotive is no longer viable in "the real world" (as opposed to where I spend most of my time).
I love steam locomotives and have devoted much of my life to them, but folks who think "Did We Scrap Steam Too Soon?" are delusional, we didn't scrap it too soon, but just in time to save the railroad industry in general.
J. David

jdconrad@snet.net

> A magazine (I am trying to remember the name
> of it; it was sent free to me as an
> engineering graduate by General Motors) had
> an excellent article on the conquest of
> steam by diesel. It is History Magazine of
> Science and Technology.

> IIRC, another, hard-to-pin-down factor that
> helped usher in steam locomotives were the
> coal strikes of the 1950s. It has been
> mentioned elsewhere about the practically
> free fuel of steam locomotives on the coal
> hauling roads; the tender was often filled
> right along with the rest of the train!

> I believe the reasoning was that the strikes
> were causing interruptions in the supply of
> coal as a source of fuel. Diesel oil has no
> such strikes to contend with; so it made it
> a more attractive fuel source.

> I agree that a steam locomotive burning oil
> is a lot more expensive to run than a diesel
> running on diesel fuel. (The need to supply
> water, the added labor, poor energy
> conversion efficiency, etc.) I believe
> another factor was the Bunker C oil used as
> fuel by many of the oil burning steam
> locomotives also went up in price, as other
> by-products such as plastics began to
> compete for the oil feedstock.

> -James Hefner
> Hebrews 10:20a

James, you have a point there. I recall hearing it said that John L. Lewis was the best Diesel salesman that there was. Jim


rrfanjim@mvn.net

> You are so correct.
> I haven't the time to "run the
> numbers" for you, but I will give you a
> couple that ought to wake up some folks: at
> Valley Railroad we budget $35,000.00 per
> year, per steam locomotive for routine
> maintenance, supplies, hostling, etc. This
> number does not include fuel and water,
> operating staff or the overhead of cost to
> run the shop itself. To this must be added
> the cost of major repairs and major
> maintenance such as reflueing, wheel
> turning, etc.
> The "standard" diesel locomotive
> at the Valley is the GE 80 ton centercab. We
> have one built in 1947 and another (not
> quite in service yet) built in 1937. These
> are antiques themselves. Our yearly budget
> for diesel maintenance is $1500.00 and
> sometimes we don't spend that much.
> Admittedly, the diesels don't put in as many
> miles as do the steam, but they are
> available for service nearly 100%, unlike
> the steam.
> We burn rather expensive coal (about
> $95.00/ton delivered and on the ground),
> about 3.5 tons per day. The diesel uses less
> than 50 gallons of diesel fuel per day doing
> the same work.
> Recommended reading: "Technomorphology
> and the Stephenson Traction System" by
> M.C.Duffy, Transactions of the Newcomen
> Society Vol.54 (1982-83) and of course
> "The Red Devil and Other Tales of the
> Age of Steam" by David Wardale (in its'
> second printing). These really get to the
> heart of why the steam locomotive is no
> longer viable in "the real world"
> (as opposed to where I spend most of my
> time).
> I love steam locomotives and have devoted
> much of my life to them, but folks who think
> "Did We Scrap Steam Too Soon?" are
> delusional, we didn't scrap it too soon, but
> just in time to save the railroad industry
> in general.
> J. David

Erick, J.David. et al. I hear what you are saying
but I would like to point out a couple of things.
First off, there is little doubt that had some of the designs and maintenance ideas that came in the late 40s and early 50s come along a little sooner they would have set dieselization back
a bunch of years. Milwaukee Road's transit layout
of locomotive running gear greatly increased the
length of time between overhauls. PRRs 4 cylinder
designs reduced the weight of reciprocating parts
and produced power beyond what the engineers predicted. In spite of the slipperiness problem
they showed great possibilities.
Nothing they thought up, however changed the efficiency factor which was about 6% for steam and 26% for the early diesels. This one factor made diselization certain.
A second fact is that railroad travel,steam, diesel,electric or whatever, is a great experience. The fan trip we took in the late 60s
using Budd cars was a great experience. It wasn't steam but it was railroading and everyone enjoyed it. This makes me have doubts about declarations that people won't ride unless it is steam. Please
don't get me wrong. I love steam but remember, we grew up with it and a lot of people now never had the steam experience so they don't have the feel for it we do.
Jim


rrfanjim@mvn.net

(Yes of course,
> people come for the steam, and so switching
> to diesel would cause the passenger-miles to
> plummet, but the point of the execise would
> be to compare out-of-pocket costs assuming
> demand for service holds constant).

Are we all so sure that the ridership would "plummet"? Perhaps it would on some railroads, but when our steam service ended, our ridership didn't just go away. In fact one of our highest years (35,000+/-) happened several years after the steam engine had been out of service.

I am regularly reminded that many of our visitors have never ridden a train before and that alone is much of the attraction. Sometimes an older person will ask when looking over our Lima-Hamilton switcher "is this steam or diesel?". In one case an older gentlemen pointed to the electrical locker and told his grandchild "behind those doors, that's where the fire is" to which I responded "I hope not!". So, is the steam engine the attraction that will bring in the added revenue to keep its own costs covered? I don't know, but I have my doubts that the public is as interested in this topic as we are.

Many in my organization believe that if a steam engine was on the point, the crowds would flock to Connersville. They seem to believe that the increase in ridership would more than cover the costs associated with steam and even bring in extra we don't see now. While I like steam engines, I am not a believer in this concept. In fact, I think it would be very easy to find that (even with a good increase in ridership) that it might be very possible to exceed the cost of regular steam operation. This is not just fuel and water, but a set aside for the inevitable rebuilding program. This is not to give up on steam, but it would need to be a "special" activity in which higher ticket prices and / or more limited runs would be the norm. John Craft's Sustainable Steam Engine editorial comes to mind.

With our limited servicing facilities and manpower I also think that it would be hard to keep up with our heavy spring and fall schedules. These sometimes keep the old diesels running 12 to 18 hours a day on multiple trains with short turnaround times. Often these only allow us enough time to change crews and run around the train. It would be difficult to run a steam engine in some of these conditions, especially with limited crews. This of course doesn't take into account the training time needed and other qualification issues.

We don't have a GP9, though we now have an SD9 (SD10), so I will be especially interested to see how costly it is to run and maintain compared with our ALCO and Lima-Hamiltons. The EMD promoters have assured me of lower costs and easier maintenance, I'll wait and see. In any case, first generation diesels are hard to beat for cost efficiency. This is true even as they pass their 50th birthdays. Obviously, we want to operate steam engines as much for our own reasons as we do for the public. The raw numbers don't always tell us what we would like to hear...or even know. Perhaps that is why so many cling to those old operational studies, they are seeking justification. You don't need justification, just be honest in realize that running a steam engine is expensive and that expense has to be covered in some way.

David Farlow
Whitewater Valley RR

hudson.industries@worldnet.att.net

David:

Out of curiosity, do you think the numbers for the SY (while you had it) would have been significantly lower than your ~80 year old U.S. built engines?

Thanks,
Hugh
> I haven't the time to "run the
> numbers" for you, but I will give you a
> couple that ought to wake up some folks: at
> Valley Railroad we budget $35,000.00 per
> year, per steam locomotive for routine
> maintenance, supplies, hostling, etc.

the Ultimate Steam Page
whodom@awod.com

> There are a couple of threads below, some
> employing rather sophisticated financial
> reasoning-that make a qualitative case that
> steam may have been prematurely ended.

> In all the years of reading how the decision
> was made at various railroads, the case for
> diesels is always stated qualitatively.
> Almost nobody translates this into dollars
> and cents.

> However, any qualitative advantage must be
> translated into clear economic advantage.

I've stated my view on this on another board and managed to offend some posters, but I'll take a stab at it again. It wasn't just the numbers that killed steam. The diesel was the great equalizer. Your worst crews had almost as good a chance of getting over the road as your best crews. It takes a fair amount of skill on the part of both the engineer and the fireman to run a steam locomotive. With a diesel locomotive the engineer's knowledge and skill are not as important. So I contend that railroad managers during the transition were eager to dieselize to boost the overall performance by all their crews, cutting down on road failures, thus cutting costs.

Martyhuck@aol.com

If you want real cheap to operate, try good old streight electricity. Our Birney streetcar #21 on the Fort Collins Municipal Railway consumes less than 2 cents worth of electricity per mile.A 3 mile round trip consumes about a kilowatt hour. Our montly electric bill doesn't change from Summer when we run the car to Winter when we don't. We have never made it over minimum billing.

Roger Mitchell
Master Mechanic
Fort Collins Municipal Railway

n0mcr@netzero.net

I am but 33 years old. By the time I was even a glint in Dad's eye, steam was gone. I did not grow up with it, but have had enough feel for it that I taught myself to roll tubes by the time I got out of high school. Since then, I have been involved in the restoration of many types of steam, from logging prairies to mill engines. I have made it a habit to search out the "old men" who worked them "for real".Best quote I ever heard was an old sawmill man who said "heaven is a place where the water flows clear and the injecters run free."

I have regularly run diesels as my job, but steam is where my heart is. Modern railroading is about as exciting as watching grease congeal, and I worry about these "Ohhh, the UP wings are headed our way" types that wet themselves over unit coal trains.

The public, BY IN LARGE, will prefer to ride behind a steamer, because for good or bad, they are all Choo Choo trains to the kids.

Steam is inherently interesting, even to those with only passing interest.

No real songs have been written about "Hear that lonesome airhorn blat." Can you imagine indigenous American music without the rythm of steam?
Petticoat Junction exposed a lot of my generation to steam, Thomas is doing it today.

lorija799@aol.com