[ARC5] OT: DY-17? Hmph!
Richard Knoppow
1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com
Wed Dec 19 18:16:04 EST 2012
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
To: "Arc5" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ARC5] OT: DY-17? Hmph!
> On 19 Dec 2012 at 9:12, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>> things when working. There were very good reasons that
>> they
>> were supplanted by diesel-electric but diesels just don't
>> have the magic.
>
> Actually, that is not quite totally true: in at least two
> countries that I know of,
> India being one, and the other some place in Africa, after
> doing a very, very
> thorough cost/benefit analysis, it was determined that
> steam was still more
> efficient, overall, than diesel-electrics. As I remember
> it, the primary
> determining cost was the cost of fuel, coupled with the
> requirement to make
> major changes in the entire infrastructure.
>
> Here is another story that you may find of interest: two
> long sections of the
> old Milwaukee Road had been totally electrified early in
> the 20th century.
> These lines were noted for their extreme overall
> efficiency.
>
> Among other things, trains going DOWN one side of the
> Rocky Mountains
> would, by regenerative braking, essentially pull another
> train UP the other
> side.
>
> They operated at 3000 VDC.
>
> This entire stretch of electrified railway was eventually
> done away with when
> some pencil-necked geeks in the accounting department
> decided to make
> everything "standard" and go completely to diesel-electric
> locomotives.
>
> So, in order to accomplish this dirty trick, in 1973, just
> when the Oil Crisis hit,
> and costs for fuel skyrocketed, ALL the maintenance costs
> of ALL the entire
> line was written off against ONLY the electrified portions
> so that they could
> then show the share-holders and upper-management how
> "in-efficient" it was
> and could do away with it.
>
> A couple of the fellows who worked on the line and who
> were hams told me
> this.
>
> There is a section in the wikipedia article on the
> Milwaukee Road that details
> this, under De-Electrification, and says that IFF the
> Milwaukee Road had
> STAYED electrified, it would be still in existence today
> since even the OLD
> electric locos operated at half the cost of the
> diesel-electrics. As it is, the line
> went bankrupt for the last time in 1986.
>
> Ken W7EKB
Its interesting that when diesel-electric locomotives
began to become popular the price of fuel oil began to
increase. Not because the railroads were using it but
because many things changed in the U.S. economy. Nonetheless
the overall cost of motive power has many more factors than
fuel cost. There is a big difference in the cost of
maintaining the right of way, diesels do not damage the
track nearly as much as a reciprocating locomotive, nor do
they require frequent water storage facilities, (towers and
track pans), or coaling towers. Also, the average steam
locomotive spent half its time in the shop for routing
maintenance. Some railroads were able to better this ratio
but mostly the "availability" of diesel was far better than
steam.
Another factor, which is often overlooked, is pollution.
At the time steam, especially coal-burning steam, was
nearing the end of its time the demand to get rid of the
enormous amount of dirt from them was rapidly increasing.
It was not just the smoke but the soot and clinkers which
surrounded rail yards and rights of way. I am old enough to
remember this and it was not trivial.
There were other factors: Diesel locomotives are much
more standardized than steam. Almost all steamers were
custom built for a particular run. Diesels can be adapted
for any kind of service and two or more can be linked
together as a single unit where more tractive effort is
needed. Diesel locomotives are mobile assets, this means
that a railroad can easily sell them to another railroad.
This allows them to be financed much more easily since they
can be used as equity.
Its likely the railroads began to consider changing to
diesel-electric in the 1930s but the lack or capital during
the depression held them back. Also, coal was very cheap in
the parts of the country near mining areas. Then, during
WW-2 new equipment of any sort was in short supply. The
government wanted the railroads to use what was most easily
available so steam continued. Once the war was over and
once some degree of economic stability returned the
railroads had enough capital to do what they had intended
for years and changed over to the new motive power.
The change over was rapid since the full economic
benefits of diesel can not be realized if steam is
continued. Diesel does not need coaling stations or water
towers which must remain if there is also steam plus the
steam locomotives running will continue to damage the track.
Steam also needs different maintenance: the roundhouses used
for routine cleaning of boilers and other work, were not
needed for diesel. Diesel is maintained mostly by exchanging
modules. Power trucks, prime movers and generators, and
control devices, are all replaced as units. The main tool
required is a heavy overhead crane.
So steam disappeared very quickly. Once diesel became
available few steamers were seen in as little as five years
and after ten hardly any were left. None of the three major
steam locomotive builders survived: Baldwin, the oldest and
largest failed after merging with Lima, the smallest of the
three. While the company continued for perhaps ten years it
was mostly gone by about 1950. American Locomotive Company
had switched to diesel but did it too late, they survived to
about 1970 and there is still some remnant. The main
manufacturer was the Electro-Motive Division of General
Motors. They were enormously successful until General
Electric broke away from their partnership with ALCO and
began to compete directly. Now GE is the only manufacturer
of railroad locomotives in the United States, EMD having
been moved to Canada and sold.
Electric railways have many advantages but are very
expensive to maintain. For the most part the economics did
not favor their survival. Electric locomotives are
relatively quiet, produce no pollution at the track side
(its all at the generating stations) and can produce
enormous power for short periods when needed. The power is
also very smooth so they do not damage the track. The
largest operator of electric railways was the Pennsylvania
Railroad but they were also the busiest. The Milwaukee Road
and the Norfolk and Western also had substantial
electrification mainly in mountainous areas where the great
tractive effort of these machines was vital.
This is so off topic that some will scream about it but
I won't write more. Note that the dates above are from
memory and quite approximate. There is lots more on the web
for those who get curious.
Something at the end: When I was very young I rode
from New York City to Miami on the railroad. The first half
of the trip was via electric or diesel electric in nice,
fairly modern Pullman cars. Somewhere in the South we
changed to a train pulled by a steam locomotive. My first
reaction was it was great because the windows could be
opened. Well, one does not open windows on a passenger car
behind a coal burning steam locomotive. At least not unless
you love soot and hot clinkers blowing in.
Wherever it was we changed we saw the General Motors
Train of Tomorrow on display. All stainless steel with
observation domes on the cars. Some contrast to what I
wound up spending a night in.
With all this diesels have no romance.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
dickburk at ix.netcom.com
More information about the ARC5
mailing list