FA+
Shop
201
Views
Views
8
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Photography / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 960
File Size 344.3 kB
Report this content
More from boilerwash
Profile shot of the drive wheels and maze of pipe work on Chesapeake & Ohio #2716 a Berkshire class 4-8-2. Even stnading still these machines make an impressive sight once you start thinking about the vast amount of engineering that went into machines like this. Nothing on a diesel can compare to this.
Plus theres the thought that all this was designed and engineered to be spinning around at a couple of hundred RPMs!
Plus theres the thought that all this was designed and engineered to be spinning around at a couple of hundred RPMs!
Category Photography / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 960px
File Size 344.3 kB
"The modern locomotive manufacturers could not only build them if there was ever a need (which environmental laws will never allow) but could make them stronger, lighter, and much more efficient then the original builders ever dreamed." It is a nice thought but todays manufacturing ability pales in comparison to what it took just to cast and then machine the frame for one of these locos. Yes they are "simple" in concept but they require skilled people to run and maintain them where as a diesel does not. A diesel is also considered 'throw-away' tech. they are cheap to build and replace. They're even considered to be 'worn-out' and in need of replacing after ten years of service (though there are plenty of examples of units running around that are way older than this, but they are the exception and not the rule).
A simple question; How many diesels (six axle units) does it take to equal one Lima Berkshire (roughly 3600 DBHP)?
In England they did an exhaust test of of one steam vs. one diesel, they found that the steam engine did not put out anywhere near the amount of heavy pollutants of the diesel. (external vs internal combustion seems to be the reason for this)
'Stem-winder' is a new term to me, which of the geared engines at Cass are you referring to?
A simple question; How many diesels (six axle units) does it take to equal one Lima Berkshire (roughly 3600 DBHP)?
In England they did an exhaust test of of one steam vs. one diesel, they found that the steam engine did not put out anywhere near the amount of heavy pollutants of the diesel. (external vs internal combustion seems to be the reason for this)
'Stem-winder' is a new term to me, which of the geared engines at Cass are you referring to?
A small intricate internal combustion casting of say 200# versus a large 30+ ft steel casting machined to a tolerance of thousandth of an inch. Your comparison is Apples to Oranges, What you are comparing by your description is Mathias Baldwin's early efforts to todays machinery.
Again here you are using the 1800's in your argument against the modern steam locomotive. The modern Steam loco could and did 3600+ mi trips, and they had a very high availability rate as well.
There is not a foundry in America today that can do a casting of the sizes and intricacies that were used in the modern steam engine, besides a 'Big Boy' is made up of two smaller castings and even those are beyond current ability two cast. Mine trucks are made of built-up steel plate construction, the only large castings being the pieces that make-up the diesel motor assembly with some drop-forgings thrown in for good measure.
Now we get to the real argument. And is a lot more complex than you make it out to be.
"A modern diesel is infinitely rebuildable" So is a steam engine.
"diesel was infinatlely more reliable, required hundreds of thousands in dollars less maintenance per unit life, used less fuel per ton mile, required less manpower to operate, and was more powerful for the size package it was in"
At the time of change over they were not more 'Reliable' a diesel could take days to fix while a steam took hours. Again 'Unit life', a large majority of those first gen diesels were traded in before they were ten years old.
Used less fuel per unit but took more units to pull the same size trains = fuel economy?
Less manpower = higher shareholder profits, same goes for the skill level, less skill needed = lower wages
And as for power to size that is still un-true today as it was then. What is the DBHP of a 4000 (shaft)hp diesel at 40mph the steam engine pictured here had a DBHP of around 34 to 36 hundred hp at 40mph.
"The companies switched to what allowed them to compete with the up and coming trucking industry and could not do so with steam power." Now this is a political/economic issue, the railroads were not allowed to compete with the heavily government subsidized trucking industry and its publicly financed roadways just take a look into the ICC archives for this info. To this day the railroads still pay taxes on their right-of-way and by modern standards waist shareholder profits on maintaining that right-of-way, by comparison the over-the-road truck companies don't have to pay the actual costs for what it takes to maintain the roads from the damage their trucks cause daily. Add on top of all this the fact that you 'had' cheap foreign oil that our gov. spent millions to make sure it stayed cheap at the time when American coal miners were demanding and getting a living wage and benefits. (Ooh those 'evil' trade unions) "infinitely"? a modern steam loco of the time had the same reliability. I'll give you the less cost argument only because of the diesels 'throw away' design (as in that's broken/burned out just put a new part/s in) less money per unit life, again diesels don't last as long. 'Use less fuel per ton/mile' There are other factors involved here than engine 'efficiency' as in kind of freight equipment being pulled, fuel costs... 'Less manpower to operate' here again that throw away aspect comes in, less skilled and fewer mechanics in the back shop + less skilled engineers in the cab (due to electronics in the cab telling you what you should already know that your train and engine are or aren't doing just by sound and feel) = lower costs. (more skill = more money, this is Ray Kroc's claim to fame; put the skill in the machines and you don't have to pay the employees as much money)
The 'more powerful steam engines' were built to reduce double heading of steam engines, which did require an extra crew. more powerful diesels today? GM built 6000(shaft)hp units for the railroads, they couldn't use them. That V32 = too many moving parts = more breakdowns = do not want. Heck you had 4000 and 6000 hp diesels even 8000 hp gas turbine units that could not move the same amount of freight that a Big Boy could. Here again Apples to Oranges = roller bearings vs friction bearings, different engines designed to pull different kinds of freight equipment. (this is a different part of the argument than has been touched on here).
It'll take me quite a bit of digging to find that exhaust test report again, should not include if not have in hand.
As you can tell I like steam over diesel any day of the week and I'll grant that diesel has its place in railroad usage, especially now that there is no other system in use nationally, but all these claims of how much better it was/is in actually moving freight over the railroad is just so much balderdash with more than half of it being political/economics at its ugly best.
May I recommend some interesting reading, "Along the Metropolitan Corridor" it is an in depth look into the 'whys' and 'wherefores' of rail transportation networks and gives a good understanding of moving goods and commodities from field and mine to urban markets and how it, the rail network, even created new markets all at a time before 'Milton Freedman" school of economics reared its ugly head.
Thanks for the 'stem-winder' info.
Again here you are using the 1800's in your argument against the modern steam locomotive. The modern Steam loco could and did 3600+ mi trips, and they had a very high availability rate as well.
There is not a foundry in America today that can do a casting of the sizes and intricacies that were used in the modern steam engine, besides a 'Big Boy' is made up of two smaller castings and even those are beyond current ability two cast. Mine trucks are made of built-up steel plate construction, the only large castings being the pieces that make-up the diesel motor assembly with some drop-forgings thrown in for good measure.
Now we get to the real argument. And is a lot more complex than you make it out to be.
"A modern diesel is infinitely rebuildable" So is a steam engine.
"diesel was infinatlely more reliable, required hundreds of thousands in dollars less maintenance per unit life, used less fuel per ton mile, required less manpower to operate, and was more powerful for the size package it was in"
At the time of change over they were not more 'Reliable' a diesel could take days to fix while a steam took hours. Again 'Unit life', a large majority of those first gen diesels were traded in before they were ten years old.
Used less fuel per unit but took more units to pull the same size trains = fuel economy?
Less manpower = higher shareholder profits, same goes for the skill level, less skill needed = lower wages
And as for power to size that is still un-true today as it was then. What is the DBHP of a 4000 (shaft)hp diesel at 40mph the steam engine pictured here had a DBHP of around 34 to 36 hundred hp at 40mph.
"The companies switched to what allowed them to compete with the up and coming trucking industry and could not do so with steam power." Now this is a political/economic issue, the railroads were not allowed to compete with the heavily government subsidized trucking industry and its publicly financed roadways just take a look into the ICC archives for this info. To this day the railroads still pay taxes on their right-of-way and by modern standards waist shareholder profits on maintaining that right-of-way, by comparison the over-the-road truck companies don't have to pay the actual costs for what it takes to maintain the roads from the damage their trucks cause daily. Add on top of all this the fact that you 'had' cheap foreign oil that our gov. spent millions to make sure it stayed cheap at the time when American coal miners were demanding and getting a living wage and benefits. (Ooh those 'evil' trade unions) "infinitely"? a modern steam loco of the time had the same reliability. I'll give you the less cost argument only because of the diesels 'throw away' design (as in that's broken/burned out just put a new part/s in) less money per unit life, again diesels don't last as long. 'Use less fuel per ton/mile' There are other factors involved here than engine 'efficiency' as in kind of freight equipment being pulled, fuel costs... 'Less manpower to operate' here again that throw away aspect comes in, less skilled and fewer mechanics in the back shop + less skilled engineers in the cab (due to electronics in the cab telling you what you should already know that your train and engine are or aren't doing just by sound and feel) = lower costs. (more skill = more money, this is Ray Kroc's claim to fame; put the skill in the machines and you don't have to pay the employees as much money)
The 'more powerful steam engines' were built to reduce double heading of steam engines, which did require an extra crew. more powerful diesels today? GM built 6000(shaft)hp units for the railroads, they couldn't use them. That V32 = too many moving parts = more breakdowns = do not want. Heck you had 4000 and 6000 hp diesels even 8000 hp gas turbine units that could not move the same amount of freight that a Big Boy could. Here again Apples to Oranges = roller bearings vs friction bearings, different engines designed to pull different kinds of freight equipment. (this is a different part of the argument than has been touched on here).
It'll take me quite a bit of digging to find that exhaust test report again, should not include if not have in hand.
As you can tell I like steam over diesel any day of the week and I'll grant that diesel has its place in railroad usage, especially now that there is no other system in use nationally, but all these claims of how much better it was/is in actually moving freight over the railroad is just so much balderdash with more than half of it being political/economics at its ugly best.
May I recommend some interesting reading, "Along the Metropolitan Corridor" it is an in depth look into the 'whys' and 'wherefores' of rail transportation networks and gives a good understanding of moving goods and commodities from field and mine to urban markets and how it, the rail network, even created new markets all at a time before 'Milton Freedman" school of economics reared its ugly head.
Thanks for the 'stem-winder' info.
Comments