Gets back to what I’ve said on other Forum posts. N&W only went diesel because they were ordered to by the Pennsy, who held controlling interest at the time. I’m sure they realized diesels were coming eventually but they just weren’t in any rush.
Hi Big Jim,
Yup, same guy that not only created the Y6c out of thin air and lots of factual errors, but also the A1. N&W never had any such classes and they didn’t need to. This stuff will never die!!! See Trains Nov 1991 and the response of someone who participated in the steam vs diesel tests in the May 1992 issue (only a portion of his letter was published.). There were also two lengthy articles rebutting this nonsense in N&W Historical Society’s magazine The Arrow, one by the same person that participated in the tests and another by a disinterested party that came to the same conclusions. There were no such alterations, and no reason to make them.
Sorry about my last post. I guess I missed the May '92 letter.
But were the results on fuel cost comparison correct, or was that part of the myth, too?
A 33% interest in N&W is a controlling interest only if you can persuade enough other shareholders to agree with you. Anyway, as mentioned elsewhere, N&W was running into the position of being able to operate steam locomotives efficiently but no longer being able to maintain them properly because of parts unavailability.
The steam vs diesel test report is available at the N&WHS archives in Roanoke. There is no mystery to it. All of the findings are documented including cost comparisons. I’ve been through the report page by page many times over the past 15 years or so and keep a copy here. The person I referred to above that participated in the tests comes to almost every archives work session. His memory is sharper than most people half his age. On top of that, he kept a diary of the events he saw during the individual tests where he had a role. You can’t get much better than that. That’s why many of us can’t understand where that article came from. The conclusions are not supported by the historical information available.
Okay, I’ve overcome my embarrassment enough to thank you all for setting me straight. All these years I’ve accepted the story about the enhancements as fact even though I thought it curious that I never found it mentioned anywhere else. [:$]
[quote user="Paul Milenkovic"]
schlimm:
Not really sure, but I think I read that Diesel fuel back in the 50’s was cheaper than gasoline, so maybe it would have been relatively cheaper in your calculations than now.
The story back in the "Steam-Diesel Transition Era" was that oil was being discovered/developed in Saudi and the US hadn’t reached it’s 1970 Hubbert Peak, and the United Mine Workers were flexing their muscles with regard to the mine workers getting better pay for the dirty dangerous work they do. Oil was particularly cheap compared to now, and it seems with the low price of oil and the much higher thermal efficiency of Diesel engines, Diesel locomotives had a clear fuel cost advantage over steam.
At the time of the ACE 3000 project – what was that, mid '70’s in response to the 70’s Oil Embargo and Middle East tensions – I believe that a mid teens thermal efficient coal burning steam locomotive had a clear fuel cost advantage over a Diesel locomotive. Even a 5 percent efficient steam engine (the ACE people tested a Northern) had a slight fuel cost savings over Diesel at that time.
Today, the price of coal is increasing along with many other things, but the price of oil in inflation-adjusted terms is not too far off from conditions in the 1970’s – early '80’s.
The other thing to remember about the ACE 3000 project is that when was this, early '70’s, and when did Norfolk and Western drop the fire of the last mainline steamer, 1960? Yes the railroads were thoroughly Dieselized and the thought of bringing coal-fired steam back – think of Don Oltmann’s shop foreman thinking the best thing to do with a locomotive boiler was to fill it with cement so it could not be put in service and have a boiler explosion accident. But t
33% is controlling interest if you’re the majority stockholder. Besides, why do you think N&W’s passenger coaches were painted Tuscan Red?
Yeah, well the temptation is to go with a condensing "tender" because of not needing the watering stops and the more thermodynamically efficient cycle and the need to not worry about hard water. I have come to accept that a condensing steam cycle without access to a cooling pond, however, is the wrong way to go. Not that this would have answered your objections, Don, but I believe Livio Dante Porta was trying to pull the ACE 3000 team back from the abyss by trying, as their first effort, to simply build a better non-condensing steam engine as their first effort.
With respect to Diesel reliability, that had to have been developed over time and didn’t start out as a given. I believe the EMD 567 engine was something of a breakthrough as whatever Winton engine they had – wasn’t the story that the pre-war Winton-engine E units had technicians riding in the engine compartments to make repairs underway? Or is this part of the mythology of railroading?
One other thing about Diesel reliability, I had been reading late-50’s vintage railroad trade magazines in the Engineering College library at the U. I can go look up what the magazine title is, but it had a monthly column on the Mysterious Diesel Problem of the Month. A steam engine is essentially a big tea kettle – keep a fire going, keep water in it, keep the bearings oiled, keep the flues unplugged, and the thing pretty much runs. The Diesel had a complex electrical system –
33% is NOT a majority. I believe that the N&W shares owned by PRR were held in trust and PRR was not allowed to exercise control per ICC order. The prime function of the N&W shares owned by PRR was to pay dividends to PRR, which did much to cover PRR’s operating losses.
Maybe Ed King should step in and set everyone straight on this issue...which is Pennsy had enough good sense to let the N&W run the N&W!
In the case of the Super A, a westbound train headed by a Class A stalls on the Blue Ridge grade because it is over tonnage. The author deduces that it must have been a Super A or the dispatcher would never have let it try to make the grade on its own. What he didn’t know is that many times after trains were pushed east over the Blue Ridge, the pusher waited at the foot of the mountain and pushed another train west over Blue Ridge. Simply an everyday thing that someone blew all out of proportion.
May I add to not believe everything you read in those blurbs under pictures telling you this and that. I have found many a blurb to be nothing more than BS used to fill some space under a photo.
[quote user="Paul Milenkovic"]
oltmannd:
Some other things I remember. The condensing tender. Big condensing radiators with fans power by the low pressure steam (or hot water? I don’t really remember) Exactly how reliable was this going to be? I remember at the time thinking about how we couldn’t keep SD45 radiators from leaking all over the place, and they were only 8 row soldered core running just hot water.
Yeah, well the temptation is to go with a condensing "tender" because of not needing the watering stops and the more thermodynamically efficient cycle and the need to not worry about hard water. I have come to accept that a condensing steam cycle without access to a cooling pond, however, is the wrong way to go. Not that this would have answered your objections, Don, but I believe Livio Dante Porta was trying to pull the ACE 3000 team back from the abyss by trying, as their first effort, to simply build a better non-condensing steam engine as their first effort.
With respect to Diesel reliability, that had to have been developed over time and didn’t start out as a given. I believe the EMD 567 engine was something of a breakthrough as whatever Winton engine they had – wasn’t the story that the pre-war Winton-engine E units had technicians riding in the engine compartments to make repairs underway? Or is this part of the mythology of railroading?
One other thing about Diesel reliability, I had been reading late-50’s vintage railroad trade magazines in the Engineering College library at the U. I can go look up what the magazine title is, but it had a monthly column on the Mysterious Diesel Problem of the Month. A steam engine
I guess this should have been said long before this thread got going sideways,
You should read "The Thermodynamic Closing of the Great Steam/Diesel Debate" by William Pettitjean. That will answer and explain the basic question at hand.
Having read the previous comments, I might throw in a few words of mine.
Given historical steam - FGS, first generation steam as it was denominated by Porta in contrast to his proposed second and third generation steam – did typically reach some 8 % thermal indicated efficiency in German standard steam loco classes (simple expansion all), with about 9 % in the best European simple expansion types, 10 % in good compound types, 11 to 12 % in the best French compound types including Chapelon rebuilt 4‐6‐2 and 4‐8‐
To Juniatha: Wow! That’s the first time I’ve ever read a doctoral dissertation in an on-line forum! Seriously though, well thought out and well written. One thing’s for sure, if something comes along to make diesels obsolete, I don’t think there’ll be many tears shed over them, certainly not as many as the steam engines got and still get. People just love steam. The head may say diesel, but the heart always says "steam rules!"
The idea of a 2-8-8-8-8-2 "quadraplex" to meet the low-speed traction of a 4-unit Diesel locomotive brings up an interesting question. By applying steam to four sets of drivers, one could perhaps build a high-tractive effort low-speed machine, but its speed would be limited.
The idea of "booster" engines applied to single trailing truck axles on Hudsons and Northerns I think tried to address that problem in a limited way. That is, one applies steam power to a larger number of axles at low speeds and then one applies steam power to a smaller number of axles at higher speeds, in the process having a machine that can operate over a wider speed range without exhausting the steam supply.
But these booster engines were only applied to single axles, and again, many railroads did not believe their complexity and attendant maintenance cost to be worth their performance.
Hey, Ho, wonderful written,
"This would then very much approach the end of the line for ‘conventional’ i.e. classic steam of basically Stephensonian concept."
and maybe that#s just the breaking point, traction motors on flexible trucks, electricity for perfect energy transmission,
unbeatable. Any power-source, small enough, could be instelled on that. That killed the steam engine, in my mind.
Cheers
-lars
I may be mistaken, but I would think that switching service has the highest amount of time where the engine is idling. In the US, switchers were of