The simplest one sentence explanation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of steam and diesel that I've seen is: "A diesel locomotive can start a train it can't pull and a steam locomotive can pull a train it can't start."
That's because of electric generators. As you put more power through them, they actually lose force. Compared to a steam engine, which once it gets going at. Its operating speed is at full Force compared to starting Which is where the saying a diesel can Start a train, it can't pull and a steam engine. Can pull train It can't start.
Back in the late 80's when I started my railroad career, some of the old heads that operated steam used to say this same thing. Many would say if only the two were combined you would have one heck of a pulling machine. As for the steam vs diesel, I mostly ran diesels, but did get a chance to run a steam locomotive on a tourist line and tried to look for comparisons . With diesels, I could get a good roll leaving the yard, but when coming up on a steep grade, that's when I had to watch my amp meter close and constantly look behind to be sure the other units were not having issues with overloading the traction motors or the engines working so hard that a crankshaft would get hurled through the engine block (which did happen once) especially with the older models. With steam, you had hands on with the power it put out, but had to know all the levers, gauges, and setting the power reverse lever just right as you gained speed to get it to maximum performance.😁 That said, from talking with those running steam, they always said with steam the harder you work them, the better they would preform in both power and efficiency. With diesels, as I spoke of, the harder you worked them, the high risk of something tearing up electrical and mechanical. Guess both steam and diesels will always have a plus/minus in their abilities no matter the gauge they run on.😁
Don't forget how many maintenance personnel it took to maintain a steam locomotive. That's another huge cost savings for a railroad. Another cost savings was in fuel storage and handling.
One thing that never seems to be mentioned in the comparison of steam and diesel locomotives, is the working conditions, the health and safety, comfort and ease of operation for locomotive cab crews. I'm sure more than a few cab crews cheered and even celebrated when they were transferred from a steam locomotive and assigned to a operate a new diesel locomotive!
Even with all the technological refinements of diesels, up to the present day, they have not surpassed steam in one area: horsepower per unit. Diesels are definitely more sure-footed, that is, not nearly as prone to wheel slip. The most recent diesels from EMD and GE put out astounding tractive effort per unit, with ratings from 180,000lbs. to 200,000lbs. starting. As far as I know, this surpasses any steam locomotive. About 1 1/2 years ago, my wife and I saw an unbelievable display of sheer brute strength by diesels. We were at Fremont Ohio's east end when a westbound manifest came through on the Toledo Line out of Bellevue. On the point was one AC44C6M. Then, 120 cars later was the DPU, another "suped-up Catfish". we both confirmed each other's count of 283 cars. That's right . 283, not 183, all handled by only 2 units. Going through Fremont, trains must descend a grade, then climb up another grade out of town. This train probably didn't exceed 30mph the whole time, but it did keep moving steadily. Conclusion: Except for the short-lived 6000hp peak reached in the 1990's, diesels still have not topped the horsepower of steam, but they are much more able to keep heavy trains moving.
The new Diesels are definitely banging. Better economy too.. Wont be enough to save it against fossil fuel shortage.. Unlike years past, hopefully the Railroads are already planning and developing for that.
The thing is that diesels figured out very early on that they didn't really *need* to beat steam in terms of power per unit when they could do multi-unit operation. Yeah diesels needed to double or triple head to match mainline steamers, but it was really easy to do when it was needed. Doing multi-unit work with a steam engine required multiple crews that were coordinating and tending each engine, but with diesels you regularly had as many as 4 units being run by a single engineer. This is why the EMD FT sold with the B unit by default, the A unit couldn't compete with steam on its own, but the AB set could so EMD pitched the set as a single unit in multiple parts.
First off, I'm barely old enough to remember when steam was still in regular service and still love steam engines. I am also a former CN employee and have spent a lot of time on trains. However, you covered many reasons as to why diesel is superior. Steam has extremely high maintenance costs. They generally don't go more that a few hundred miles, without shop time, whereas a diesel can cross the country, turn around and come back again. Also, notice how diesels are often paired, with a cab facing in each direction? That means they don't have to be turned. Steam requires a turntable or reversing track. There is also the flexibility. As you mentioned, steam locomotives were built for the various types of service, resulting in some that were huge and extremely heavy, to the point they were often limited to the tracks and bridges they could run over. In contrast, if you need more power with a diesel, just add on another unit. Also, steam cannot be operated as a multi unit, so you'd need a crew for each locomotive. The crew compartment comfort is also a lot worse for steam. In addition, there's pollution. Coal is simply dirtier than oil. Steam also requires frequent stops for coal and water and in some areas water is hard to come by. Another cost issue is the time it takes to bring a steam locomotive up to pressure, before it can even move. Bottom line, as you so often mention, the reason is the bottom line. Steam costs much more than diesel to operate and that's what's important to the railroads.
I used to correspond with a marine engineer, who wrote once about the replacement of steam engines with diesel engines on a ship on which he worked. The steam engines were super-efficient QUADRUPLE compound units (high pressure, lower, low, very low pressure). Nevertheless, the fuel savings in the first year of operation paid for the diesels! After loving steam in my early years I have learned to like diesels, too. This has enabled me to enjoy my railfan journeys in the USA (I live in UK.)
Yeah, diesels didn't need to outperform steam as it was so easy to just double head, and having more smaller units gave more operational flexibility. Hence why the trend for monster units like the DD40 never really stuck.
The iron horse went extinct entirely for economic reasons. They cost more than Diesel-Electrics for: 1) Locomotive Maintenance 2) Water Supply 3) Track Depletion 4) Car Maintenance (No dynamic brake means more brake shoe and wheel replacements.) 5) Availability (Mostly maintenance downtime, also it takes hours to fire up a "cold" boiler.) As for performance, steam fared better than Diesels in passenger service, as steam provides a constant effort up to the speed where steam consumption outpaces boiler production. The Diesel is a constant-power engine, consequently tractive effort decreases with speed, but at startup the effort is only limited by adhesion. Since a Diesel's weight is 100% adhesive, it will produce more starting tractive effort than a steam engine of the same weight. It also has the smooth, steady pull of electric motors, while steam's herky-jerky cyclic torque makes slipping much more of a problem.
Many fine responses here, from people who know what they;'re talking about. I particularly like what @kc4vh has summarized above. Herewith a couple of additions to his list in favour of diesels. 2a) Under 'Water Supply', realize that besides maintaining the tracks, railroads also had to maintain a string of water towers along every track. Like today's electric cars needing recharge stations every couple hundred miles -- add up the *frequency* of needing to top up the locomotive's water, together with the *time* needed at each refill, and (for the trackside water tanks) another layer of mainenance costs. Especially to keep the towers working and full in cold winters, and across the deserts! That entire line item of cost disappears as soon as the last steam engine is retired from the line. 6) Distributed Power, which is now routine with diesels but never realistic under steam. Unlike items 1)-4) which are cost reductions, this is more a revenue enhancer, since it allows humungous length of train which steam power could never hope to match. Think of a train as an occupied block of track, moving across the country. If each such block contains twice as much cargo (each train much longer) and the blocks move at the same speed (since the number of occupied blocks has not changed), then distrubuted power greatly increase the freight capacity of the entire line, all the time. 7) Crew Safety, to which dynamic braking from diesels gives a boost. I have twice heard experienced engine crew mention safety as their big vote of appreciation for diesels. A related safety point comes from distrbuted power: if the engineer starts a panic stop in his cab, the end-train power unit also applies the brakes at the same moment. A mid-train unit applies brakes both fore and aft at the same moment. So a miles-long train stops as quickly as a shorter train without distributed power.
EMD probably was permitted to build locomotives because some palms got greased! BTW, thanks for including a shot of the New Haven I-5. Beautiful engine.
Standardization. Apart from the USRA locomotives, and even then you have like, over 10 different variants of those engines, every railroad would order unique locomotives to meet their unique needs. Once the engine was done and delivered it was essentially on the railroad to fix anything that went wrong with them, because the builder was now working on another relatively low volume design for a competing road that was different enough to not have compatibility. And then you have the diesels. In the early days EMD makes a F for freight, a E for passenger, and a shunter. 3 different locomotives. Because every railroad buys the same 3 locomotives EMD can make a ton of the same thing, get really good at it, and maintain a aftermarket because they only have to support 3 designs. If a steam engine has a boiler leak or something wrong with a cylinder, the railroad has to come up with a unique solution to that unique problem. If a diesel burns out a traction engine, buy a new one and slot it in.
Wrote this comment before watching, glad you hit that point In the video. As to some of your questions, If I recall correctly both the N&W and NYC basically concluded that a steam engine would haul a load about as well as a diesel and that the costs of operation were more or less equal. The benefits were elsewhere. Considering that it is 2 different roads and 2 different applications they are being considered on I would think this lends a lot of credence to them being about equal over the road. Also the big steam manufacturers were essentially gagged from developing diesels because a steam locomotive was a way to move material without using critical resources. The government did not want the builders to slack off on building locomotives in order to develop engines that used those resources when they should be building steam locomotives to meet the immediate demand. This prohibition from diesel development basically ensures that EMD (who was still allowed to build diesels during the war) would have basically a 4 year advantage on everyone else.
Also one MASSIVE selling point of diesel or electric locos over steam ones is scalability. You can just chain a bunch of them together and operate them like one loco whereas with steam you either had to get a bigger loco or operate two with their own crews at a decrease in efficiency. For example in Russia, China and some other railroads you have 2-4 units (kinda like A+B unit consist) linked together permanently counted as a single locomotive. So you can scale the power in production a lot more easily by just adding a "B unit" in between the cab units and get more power without any change in design.
FT mostly came as permanently coupled A-B sets. Multiple traction was considered from the beginning, and a lot easier to realise than in steam locomotives where in practice at least one person was required in each working locomotive (more commonly two). So it was not necessary to build very large monolithic diesel locomotives. Though in some cases (the 8-axle dual engine locomotives of UP) it went that way in the 1960s/70s, it was considered more practical to couple up more locomotives for more power. Besides the lower thermal efficiency of steam engines, it requires a lot more manpower, time and maintenance to operate. Bringing a cold steam locomotive up to temperature can take several hours. A lot of cleaning and lubrication is required every day. The time required for maintenance also means hours during which a steam locomotive and its crew cannot be used to pull trains. Besides the fuel you also need to take great amounts of water along. Some countries continued building steam locomotives after the second world war, mostly because they had great amounts of coal and didn't want to rely on imported diesel fuel. (And some electrified but that's a different story.)
Unless you're an egotistical railroad exec foolishly spending millions on multiple Steam Turbine locomotives that weren't even tested... Something like that.. Money didnt seem to matter in those situations for some odd reason.
Thank You David!!! Very Much appreciated!! Sincerely! Do you have a video topic that you would like done? If so.. it would be my next video. Thank you once again!!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Hello, many thanks for your message. I was going to ask for a video about the New York Central and you must have read my mind, as you've just released an excellent video about the Niagra class of steam locomotive locomotives. Thank you! Perhaps a video comparing the 20th Century Limited with the Broadway Limited would be interesting 🤔
I knew an old engineer who said they "felt like they had Cadillacs" when the first diesels went on-line in the 1940s and 1950s! They even smelled like new cars at first. Four points to ponder: "The Financials" trump everything on a railroad. Diesels can be equipped with dynamic brakes. In mountain railroading that makes quite a difference, even more than pulling power. EMD was allowed to build FTs during WWII but mainly for western railroads, where transporting water to desert engine terminals was a serious problem. Charles Roberts had an interesting table in his B&O book "West End". A little hard to explain here, but the crux of the biscuit was that regardless of steam or diesel or number of engines in a train, about 2.5 cars could be pulled per powered axle over Newburg, Cheat, Cranberry, and Seventeen Mile grades.
Diesels didn't need to out perform steam on a 1 on 1 level. The jumper cable made it easy to string a few of them together and it still came out cheaper than steam. Now, with mounting environmental pressures and increasing fuel costs, it could be time for the electric locomotive (not these experimental batteries on wheels) to become the preferred power.
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with these days with the looming fossil fuel issue. If they are going to develop something like Natural gas, hydrogen..what have you.. Now's the time to build experimental locomotives. but railroads have never really been known for having foresight. So as I said.. this should be interesting.
I think, maybe not the greatest benefit of diesels, but definitely up there, is their ability simply clip together and multiply their output, while still being operated by one man. Then, with a lashup acting as one unit, can the diesel outperform a steam engine. Cool to see you using images of Victorian Railways rolling stock, even if it's just a couple of little shunters. Makes me proud. 😊
Excellent Video. Thank you for putting this together for us. However, I must disagree about steam being superior to diesel (or electric) traction in any measurable way. Let me present a few bits of history that may show why I'm so confident about it. First - The Buffalo, Rochester, & Pittsburgh Ry. It was absorbed by the B&O in 1930. The B&O, through the remainder of the steam era, essentially left the former BR&P as it was in 1930. They had a large fleet of 2-6-6-2's to handle most mainline freight from Punxsutawney, PA to Buffalo, NY, coal trains to Kodak in Rochester, NY, coal to Genesee Dock on Lake Ontario, and transfer runs to the NYC at Clearfield, PA. They primarily used 2-8-2's from Salamanca, NY to Rochester, NY and fast freights between New Castle, PA and Buffalo. They had 2-8-8-2's to push trains up McMinns Summit north of DuBois, PA. They also had a group of 2-10-0's that had been the helpers on McMinns Summit until the 2-8-8-2's arrived. They were used with many of the 2-8-0's not just for local and branch-line service, but also for main-line trains from Punxsutawney to New Castle, PA. This was due to the bridge over the Allegany River at Mosgrove, PA, which was built in 1903, being too light for the 2-6-6-2's to safely cross. They had to use several 2-8-0's or 2-10-0's, each with it's own crew, to operate this section of the railroad. Obviously, the B&O dieselized this section very early with EMD F3's F7's but they also dieselized the rest of the mainline to Buffalo as well with additional F7's. This also eliminated the need for helpers on the McMinns Summit grade. Most 2-8-0's were transferred to other divisions or scrapped. the old 2-10-0's were all scrapped. The oldest 2-6-6-2's were scrapped while others replaced the 2-10-0's and many 2-8-0's in branch-line service, especially on the coal branches around Indiana, PA. The 2-6-6-2's were eventually replaced by B&O EM-1's that had been displaced by diesels on other divisions. The EM-1's would soon also be replaced with the original SD-7 demonstrator that the B&O purchased as well as SD-9's, GP-7's, and GP-9's. The diesels solved several operating system issues by allowing the trains between New Castle and Buffalo to operate with only pickups and setouts at Punxsutawney and Salamanca. Also, the engine service facilities at every terminal were significantly reduced and the locomotive shops at DuBois were converted to produce and rebuild more freight cars, including the distinctive B&O "Wagon Top" boxcars. Currently, the Buffalo & Pittsburgh RR runs some of the heaviest diesels ever built (SD45's, SD40-2's, SD60M's, and now GE Dash-9's) over the Mosgrove bridge, now 120 years old, without any issues. Second - The Norfolk & Western. I'm sure you are aware, the N&W very impressively built their own steam engines, of their own design, until the very end of the steam era. However, very significantly, almost at the moment they agreed to merge with the Virginian in the 1950's, they started a manic diesel purchasing spree and began scrapping virtually new steam locomotives. The Virginian was actually in a better financial position when the agreement was signed. However, If the N&W could significantly reduce costs within the 2 years before the merger became official, the N&W would be the controlling partner. The efficiency of the newer diesels and reduced engine maintenance costs would only get them a very small part of the way to that goal. The cost savings, and surge in stock price, was almost entirely due to the savings achieved through reduced track maintenance. It is a simple fact that a steam engine, no matter how well balanced, by it's very nature, beats the track and other right of way infrastructure to pieces in a very short amount of time. That's why, in the steam era, there were track gangs about every 10 miles of main-line track. Reciprocating locomotives pound the rail head requiring a massive amount of maintenance. A diesel, with it's DC traction motors, does almost no damage to the track structure except the normal wear from flanges on the outside rail on curves. No matter how I look at it, steam was doomed as soon as EMC, Winton, and GE (yes, GE. NOT GM.) created their first demonstrators. Additional notes: Baldwin and Lima-Hamilton failed primarily due to incompatibility issues but some significant engine issues as well. They both used pneumatic controls instead of electrical controls. This made it impossible to operate their products with any other manufactures product. It's unfortunate because Baldwins were especially known for their pulling power. They eventually fixed the issue but it was already too late. Alco would be in a partnership with GE until about 1953. After that, GE started working on their own locomotive designs but Alco continued to purchase GE electrical equipment. The issue Alco had was the 244 engine. They eventually corrected the multiple mechanical issues and also produced a much more reliable 251 engine but, again, it was already too late. The railroads were much happier with the EMD GP7's and GP9's with their very reliable 567 engines.
Ultimately, it was the fact that railroads actually had competition by the 1940s that they had to start abandoning steam locomotives. When you have a complete monopoly on moving freight, you don’t need to evolve. Profit margins got smaller and just saving a little on total cost was the difference in staying in business or going bankrupt. And then only the giants survived. They swallowed up the smaller railroads or merged with them. 4 railroads haul most of the freight in the U.S. Union Pacific, BNSF, Norfolk Southern and CSX are the only ones left. A few smaller local lines of course still exist but these 4 do most of the freight hauling in the U.S.
Right... And when you look at the age of steam and you can see why those railroads emerged as the victors... You can see solid management and sound decisions throughout their time. That is, outside of the M1 .. I had to throw that one in there. Cool locomotive though!
Hi, I worked with a couple of guys that in the past were Maintenace men on the railroad, they tried to explain to me how the diesel and steam compared because of my love for steam engines. they told me that a steam engine could start a load that it could not pull, and the diesel could pull a load that it could not start. I'm still thinking about that. Rich
Total operating cost of diesel electric locomotives is what killed the use of steam locomotives period. The amount of time, money and labor needed to keep steam locomotive road ready far exceeded that of diesel electric locomotives when compering annual locomotive mileage.
The “magic” of the diesel-electric locomotive is not its internal combustion engine, but its electrical transmission and resultant adhesion with 100% of weight on drivers. For the Railroads the utmost attractions were versatility and job elimination.
Oh... it's understandable why Diesel won.. Even the early models, But I do think that steam could be made competitive today with some R & D involved. And I do think the PRR was on to something with the S2 had they the money to carry the development forward... They didnt.. And why they invested in it in the first place.. I dunno.
I do know this: my dad was in a railroad battalion during the Korean War, and you had some serious grades over there. He would tell me, and I confirmed this, about the Army's diesel locomotives getting hung up on hills and mountain passes and had to have steam locomotives pull them up the grade.
That is a matter of tractive effort and weight. If you put too much weight behind any locomotive it will stall. Diesels have more horsepower available at lower speeds than steam, but a stall is from lack of tractive effort or weight on the rails. Steam locomotives can be designed for a specific speed, either low speed pull or high speed horsepower, but it is very difficult to get both from the same design. The traction motors of a diesel produce lots of heat at low speeds, which can cause them to fail (burn out) if used at very slow speeds. This was a very real problem in early diesels, and there was a minimum speed that had to be exceeded. If you couldn't do that then you needed to shut them down and add locomotive units to reach and stay above that speed. Or split the train into sections that the locomotive could handle. Steam locomotives did not burn out, and you could maintain 5 MPH all day long if needed. Essentially, below 5 or 10 MPH both diesels and steam are limited by tractive force, not horsepower. Tractive force is also limited by weight on the driving wheels, so you cannot get much more than 25% of that weight converted to real pulling power before the wheels slip. The main advantage of a diesel is in the midrange speeds, 15-30 MPH or so. Where the high-horsepower steam designs shine is at higher speeds.
During WW2 factories were re-tooled to produce what the armed forces needed. This was why all new locomotives needed to be approved by the War Production Board. If left independent ALCO, Baldwin, and Lima could have continued to develop the steam locomotive. The ban on new designs stopped that. It was a matter of resource allocation and time management. The pre-war designs already had a proven track record, and the manufacturers already had the plans, molds, and tooling to produce them. Building a steam locomotive was also cheaper than a diesel. ALCO was already competing with Electro-Motive to produce diesel locomotives. Diesel development was also halted, with ALCO lagging behind. ALCO was allowed to build diesel switchers during WW2, while EMD got the road freight business producing FT locomotives. But quantities were limited by the War Production Board.
The war between diesel and steam wasn't won on the road, both are very capable. It was won in the shops. Steam is not coming back. Coal is no longer an acceptable fuel, and diesels are much more efficient with oil. We may see a shift to straight electric at some point, either overhead or, if there's a major breakthrough, battery.
I cant see electrification being done on the old method. It's costly, ugly looking and vulnerable to mother nature. So as you say.. Major battery technology, alternative fuel such as Hydrogen or even some sort of natural gas.. even solar on a battery system.
Thank you very much! I really do appreciate the love you all are showing me. I'll be okay.. It's just a new chapter into the unknown. That's always a scary thing for anyone, not just me. I'll be out of work for a spell for health.. But it's not the end of the world for me. Did you have a video jn mind that you wanted done?
Another thing what knocked steam locomotive in favor of diesel was the blinding exhaust it produced, especially in roadside rail applications. But I could see steam traction coming back as an alternative, though tank engines first.
I had the same story on ships, but with even more mixed results. A diesel locomotive could (ideally) operate 20 something hours a day, for weeks between service, and has dynamic braking, a big cost saver on brake maintenance. A steam locomotive operated less than half a day, between daily cleaning, fuel and water stops, and necessary maintenance. If 844 needs its rods greased every 150 miles, fires dumped daily, tubes washed, the rest checked, and hours to bring it back on line for service, how bad were the older engines? On Steam ships, operation was 48 weeks a year, Kill the fires for annual dry dock, and go right back into service Tubes are cleaned in service, and no ash pan to clean.. Schedule was God, and steam ships can run at 100% or more to meet schedule at a horrible fuel cost. Diesels, can't, are always stopping to pull pistons for scheduled maintenance (ring wear and liner inspections at around 15000 hrs, depending on make and model). They only operate in the 85% power range, as if pushed harder, tend to wear much faster, or break down. Since diesels save fuel, more cargo is hauled, the cost of cylinder oil more than offsets the cost of the fuel. What killed steam was the cost of boiler maintenance. A somewhat specialized industry. Now we have emissions to further change the picture. Have fun
Aside from dramatically increased thermal efficiency, reduced heavy maintenance, reduced service, and greater availability, diesels are a scalable modular form of motive power. You can't think of them in terms of a single unit. They are as many units as you need to perform a job operated with a single crew. Each steam locomotive requires a dedicated crew. Steam locomotives require helper operations. The reason steam locomotives got so massive was that they were trying to combine multiple steam engines into a single unit with a single crew. This also makes those massive units far less adaptable to other roles and limits where they can operate. You really can't use a BigBoy for switching. Diesels win this fight pretty easily, even in the 40s and 50s. If you read the NYC report cover to cover comparing the Niagaras to the diesels, all of this is pretty clear. Diesels definitely won that contest. When you consider all of the additional people and infrastructure required for a steam operation compared to diesel, it's an easy decision.
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower That's definitely another major consideration, dynamic augment hammering from steam engines, even the better balanced ones, is brutal on the track. Steam locomotive wheel slip at starting or at speed can be pretty destructive as well. You also have the issue of those long rigid wheelbase machines trying to straighten every curve and causing a bit of wear in the process.
First off the FT only had 1350 hp, not 5000. And when you compare a locomotive like the FT against a steam locomotive like the Big Boy you are not being fair. Apples to apples would be a FT against a smaller 6 driver steam engine. An FT AB set would be equivalent in tractive effort and hp as a 4-8-4 or similar steam locomotive. So to go against a Big boy you would be working with an ABBA set of FTs and then performance starts getting equaled. Yes it’s not a 1 to 1, but then again the big boy is essentially 2 engines under one boiler. Diesels were easier to maintain, cheaper to fuel, had longer service intervals, didn’t require frequent water stops, and could be reconfigured to suit any job easily. Also one crew could operate multiple engines, where you need a crew per engine with steam. So yea, all around cheaper, more flexible and easier to maintain. That’s why Diesel won.
The FT was marketed as a 5400 HP permanently coupled A-B-B-A locomotive, with 1350 HP in each unit. They had drawbar connections between units instead of standard couplers. Later in production there were a few exceptions built which were not ABBA. The railroads began splitting the original sets too, desiring the flexibility to mix and match with newer diesels designed with MU (multiple unit) capability, which was not a standard feature yet. This required installing standard couplers and compatible MU connections.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Don’t get me wrong, I love steam engines. The N&W Class J (611) is my all time favorite locomotive. It’s just that diesels had a cost and flexibility that beat all. It’s kinda like sail vs power in the marine world. Power is simple, go anywhere and brought boating to the masses… but turning off the engine and letting the wind push you through the water is simply an awesome feeling.
something that you are forgetting it that the really big steam locomotives were far heavier. if you match the weight of a bigboy you have 2 to 3 big diesel locomotives which have double to triple the power output and tractive force
yes the performance of steam is higher the harder you get it going to effect obviously you only get soo much water to steam no matter how effecent it is for a given size though a loco boiler can make and put out more steam for its size then a simaler stationary boiler I am told this is due to its drafting and the faster it runs the more steam sent up the blast pipe create more draft as well as the onrushing air above the stack, and the hotter the fire the dryer the superheat and more work you get out of the volume, and the more cut off you can use, some as little as 20 percent and this also takes off the back pressure it has to fight on the 2nd stroke of the cycle which robs power from it. this is also is what happens to electric engines they fight themselves the faster they go though depends how they ar geared, this is also though what gives them the dynamic brakes to help slow it down using the resistance of the electric motors, but steam that generates more power the harder you get it going, and there is soo much that can be done to make steam more effecent and get even more power out of something, but the reason diesls won was cost you didn't need the special structures to service them, didn't need relubed as much though the nw j got a good systom of getting 500 miles with its system, and you had major work get though from the niagras going 6 days and serviced in one day, though it took brave men to do the job as the hot crew diesle though you also didn't need a fireman for, it was cleaner and didn't pound the rails like a steamer though again good balancing took care of much of that , it was mostly cost of operation, but on the other hand even an advanced steamer is tougher and easier to repair that was the theory porta looked at in out of the way places you didn't have all the electroncs or expensive diesle that had to be imported and you could take and make an engine that used slack coal in one of thee most remote places with baaad water and make it perform as one of the highest horsepower to weight engines ever built even against diesles, and it used a local fuel but it took fine control of understanding of all the advancements put into one of his engines but it had way less mainanance and as gary bensman who worked with him told me porta would say you get a little gain in efficentcy here a little there and it adds up, and would spend very little time in the shop
Can't wait to see how the new T-1 from the T-1 TRUST turns out. It was a tragedy the PRR failed to preserve even one T-1, Q-2 or the S-2 Turbine. With todays technology we might make some good advances in the problems that plagued these marvelous locomotives. My dad worked from the great Enola yard up till 1963 and I still remember standing on the highway bridge at the south exit of the yard when a big lugger came under blasting smoke and steam in front of my face. Dad said the T-1's were beautiful loco's that to look at spoke "speed", same with the GG1's! Had the Pennsy allowed Franklin Equipment Co. to experiment more with the poppet valve materials to eliminate breakage at high speed, and Altoona Shop adjust suspension to eliminate slipping of engine drive units we would have had a dependable "speed demon". Several times a Franklin technician secretly rode behind T-1's west of Crestline Ohio to check the speed and timed the run with a certified RR watch at 140+ MPH when engineers were making up time. Perhaps today we might try titanium valves for strength and lightness? As for the S-2 turbine being a "steam hog" at starting and low speed, Westinghouse and Baldwin could have redesigned the gear train to use a two speed forward gear setup, low gear for starting a train, shifting to high gear at running speed to eliminate steam inefficiency. There was already a lockout mechanism so the reverse or forward turbines couldn't be engaged when the other was in use. During the war oil was a necessary war material especially Bunker-C while here in the East coal was in abundance. Perhaps we will be in that situation again, in another oil crises, and coal may come to the rescue!
I really enjoy your videos. I have recently started collecting brass trains, and you have covered many of the large, weird, and wonderful steam locomotives that interest me most. I am sure your next video will be interesting to me whomever it may be selected by. In lieu of "my" video, I jusk ask if you might venture a bit further afield at some point - not right now necessarily and not on my behalf - and do something on weird and amazing rolling stock, especially one-offs like the "Whopper hopper," the Queen Mary d.c. flatcar, and etc. There is, of course, stuff out there I am aware of that is on point, but comprises generally brief videos covereing several for a minute or so each. For example, by Southern plains railfan. In any case, this is not my request as such; rather, just a suggestion you've probably both heard and considered heretofore. I wanted to make a small contribution and I was already considering it when I saw your introduction to monetization. I sincerely wish you the best. Thank you! Dale Siemer (see-mur - I do not know how to type diatric characters, but that should be close enough.) I care just a little; you, perhaps a bit less; and everone else, not at all regarding how you pronounce it. Thanks, Valued host. Dale
Dale, first of all... THANK YOU VERY MUCH!! I actually do care a lot more than most. Enunciation, pronunciation and stuttering were a rather major issue for me for a majority of my life. Was picked on quite a bit growing up. But, believe it or not.. I would have guessed See-mur straight away :) Weird rolling stock it is! And I have a policy on this Super Thanks deal that it takes priority over my own projects. So your video is up next. Thank you once again!!
I suppose "higher performance" would depend on what they meant by "performance", what metrics they were using to measure it, and what they were comparing to what. It doesn't really matter though. If a diesel can do the job, and do it cheaper, then how it does the job doesn't really matter practically. I expect that a diesel with more power then the giant steam engines could have been built, but why would you? As you said, standardization was a diesel advantage. Buy one kind of locomotive, then dispatch however many of those you need for each job. The giant steam locomotive really weren't an optimal engineering solution and they were highly expensive specialist machines. The only reason to build them was to avoid needing multiple crews for multiheading, but diesel lets you multihead with a single crew, so why build a giant diesel? I don't see how fossil fuel shortages or phase-out favours steam. They're less thermodynamically efficient so you'd need even more fuel and I don't think any of the advanced steam technologies have an advantage over diesel in most applications. I think the only practical alternative to diesels is mass scale electrification. Everybody loves a steam engines. They're cool, but I think steam is mostly dead as a practical power source for transportation and is going to stay dead. Love them like sail boats and mechanical watches and film cameras.
I think performance is about how you want to measure it. Sure, Steam locomotives per unit were far more powerful than Diesels of the day. But that’s just looking at the hard performance numbers. A great example is modern airliners. They are more fuel efficient, have a greater range, and generally have a greater capacity which means less cost per passenger. At the same time though they are slower, have a worse climb rate, and their Take off and Landing performance is worse than their older counterparts. So modern airliners have worse “performance” but only in the metrics that airlines today would see as antiquated. I’m sure if you looked past the hp and tractive effort of steam locos and diesels, the diesels would have a cheaper cost per freight ton and therefore “perform better” in they eyes of a railroad.
Well, there are several metrics that the diesel advantage could not be overcome by steam. Otherwise steam total elimination on the railroads does not occur. I do think those advantages can be challenged with todays technology incorporated into steam.. But even then.. rebuilding the infrastructure for steam.. Would likely eliminate those gains. Therefore still not feasible.
I think diesel absolutely outperformed steam on grades. The simple reason being, you can hook up 9 or 12 of the things or however many it takes to grind up the hill at 12 miles per hour. All on one crew. Diesel will eke over the top with less horsepower than steam, and you can easily add on as much horsepower as you need. With any train, you need to schedule as enough power per ton to pull and start on the worst grade on the route, with a margin. With steam, that means you give the train a huge amount of power, because anything that'll start the hill will also blast the train at freeway speed. With diesel, you can specify a power to make any grade but still only top out at 35. Since railroads do not care at all about speed, they're happy with that deal. More tonnage per horsepower. Steam pulled better in practice because the minimum acceptable horsepower was higher. And yeah, one Allegheny will out-pull any single diesel, but it still loses because you'll never run a train with 5 Alleghenys, but 8 diesels is just Tuesday. Scalability and performance is 100% tied to cost, otherwise you really would just quintuple-head with Big Boys and pull anything anywhere. Diesel scales better. If the microchip had been invented before internal combustion, allowing one guy to run and fire 6 steam engines, dieselization may not have happened. After accounting for the cheaper up-front purchase price of 1 steamer vs 4 diesels, and the cheap fuel they used, running costs for steam weren't THAT terrible. The NYC found their Niagara compared pretty favorably in lifetime cost. But you just can't beat 1 crew doing the work of 4.
If steam recycled it's water through low pressure turbine-electric (after the double cycle pistons) and radiator cooling, it would have been more competitive. Steam out of a electric power plant is 47% efficient.. the diesel had (has) the better track bogie lay-out. Actually the combination if diesel with heat steam recuperation would be best.. along with a capacitor-battery-traction (-water) car as traction many tines is the main problem on the steel to steel layout.
During WWll the locomotive type diesel electric engines were needed for use in submarines, a favorite being the Fairbanks Morse opposed piston two cycle model, great power in a compact package. The rapid building of new steam locomotives to older designs was that the big builders still possessed patterns for castings and complex boiler plate forming dies, plus the foundry, forging and machine tool capacity to build steam locomotives, along with industrial plant and older employees skilled in their use who could be called back after the depression plus train new helpers, the (HOLDERS ON)! Diesel engines required a new set of skills and more unique and precise machinery that was in demand and allocated by the WPBoard on an as- needed quota system, and training skilled operators didn't happen overnight. In particular the fuel injector systems which had parts made to the ten-thousandth of an inch or better!
Well, diesels are cheaper, but steam locomotives are a lot stronger and more powerful, not to mention some steam locomotives were capable of outmatching the diesels, like the NYC Niagara's
Steam locos were stronger than diesels in the 40s and 50s, but not today. A new tier 4 GEVO can produce 200,000 pounds of tractive effort starting; a big boy produces 135,000.
I would kind of disagree with your statement, that diesel didn't outperform Steam. When you look at the strongest Steam vs the strongest Diesel, then yes. But if you look at two trains with the same amount of HP, then no. On equal footing, the steam train can at best perform as well as the diesel train. If you look at lower speeds, the steam train can't produce the full HP and will be worse than the Diesel. PS: Electric is better than both.
Performance wise, that's what I was complaining about in the video in favor of Steam.. FT wasn't gonna out pull a Y6B for example. Not the early versions FT I am referring to
Well, By the time the war ended, steam needed innovation as the current technology they had was nearly tapped out as far as being able to improve on it. That's what the Pennsy in particular was trying to do.
Seems like the steam engines started burning heavy bunk oil way cheaper than diesel fuel. What saves on cost is number of people a railroad hired to run and maintain trains. Seems much waz due to govt oversight and not funding rail like we funded airports
The simplest one sentence explanation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of steam and diesel that I've seen is: "A diesel locomotive can start a train it can't pull and a steam locomotive can pull a train it can't start."
Never heard it and I love it!
That's because of electric generators. As you put more power through them, they actually lose force.
Compared to a steam engine, which once it gets going at. Its operating speed is at full Force compared to starting Which is where the saying a diesel can Start a train, it can't pull and a steam engine. Can pull train It can't start.
Back in the late 80's when I started my railroad career, some of the old heads that operated steam used to say this same thing. Many would say if only the two were combined you would have one heck of a pulling machine. As for the steam vs diesel, I mostly ran diesels, but did get a chance to run a steam locomotive on a tourist line and tried to look for comparisons . With diesels, I could get a good roll leaving the yard, but when coming up on a steep grade, that's when I had to watch my amp meter close and constantly look behind to be sure the other units were not having issues with overloading the traction motors or the engines working so hard that a crankshaft would get hurled through the engine block (which did happen once) especially with the older models. With steam, you had hands on with the power it put out, but had to know all the levers, gauges, and setting the power reverse lever just right as you gained speed to get it to maximum performance.😁
That said, from talking with those running steam, they always said with steam the harder you work them, the better they would preform in both power and efficiency.
With diesels, as I spoke of, the harder you worked them, the high risk of something tearing up electrical and mechanical. Guess both steam and diesels will always have a plus/minus in their abilities no matter the gauge they run on.😁
Traction motors can overheat if worked too hard too.
@@georgecarter838 And this is why I thought the Pennsy was on to something with the S2 had they the money to stick with the idea. They didn't...
Don't forget how many maintenance personnel it took to maintain a steam locomotive. That's another huge cost savings for a railroad. Another cost savings was in fuel storage and handling.
Im with ya!
One thing that never seems to be mentioned in the comparison of steam and diesel locomotives, is the working conditions, the health and safety, comfort and ease of operation for locomotive cab crews. I'm sure more than a few cab crews cheered and even celebrated when they were transferred from a steam locomotive and assigned to a operate a new diesel locomotive!
You know, I wholeheartedly agree with that notion!
Even with all the technological refinements of diesels, up to the present day, they have not surpassed steam in one area: horsepower per unit. Diesels are definitely more sure-footed, that is, not nearly as prone to wheel slip. The most recent diesels from EMD and GE put out astounding tractive effort per unit, with ratings from 180,000lbs. to 200,000lbs. starting. As far as I know, this surpasses any steam locomotive. About 1 1/2 years ago, my wife and I saw an unbelievable display of sheer brute strength by diesels. We were at Fremont Ohio's east end when a westbound manifest came through on the Toledo Line out of Bellevue. On the point was one AC44C6M. Then, 120 cars later was the DPU, another "suped-up Catfish". we both confirmed each other's count of 283 cars. That's right . 283, not 183, all handled by only 2 units. Going through Fremont, trains must descend a grade, then climb up another grade out of town. This train probably didn't exceed 30mph the whole time, but it did keep moving steadily. Conclusion: Except for the short-lived 6000hp peak reached in the 1990's, diesels still have not topped the horsepower of steam, but they are much more able to keep heavy trains moving.
The new Diesels are definitely banging. Better economy too.. Wont be enough to save it against fossil fuel shortage.. Unlike years past, hopefully the Railroads are already planning and developing for that.
Electric locomotives (and turbine units) have been able to pass steam locomotives in power
@@844SteamFan Well, even Baldwin had said by Wars end that the current tech that steam was using was close to being maxed out.
The thing is that diesels figured out very early on that they didn't really *need* to beat steam in terms of power per unit when they could do multi-unit operation. Yeah diesels needed to double or triple head to match mainline steamers, but it was really easy to do when it was needed. Doing multi-unit work with a steam engine required multiple crews that were coordinating and tending each engine, but with diesels you regularly had as many as 4 units being run by a single engineer. This is why the EMD FT sold with the B unit by default, the A unit couldn't compete with steam on its own, but the AB set could so EMD pitched the set as a single unit in multiple parts.
First off, I'm barely old enough to remember when steam was still in regular service and still love steam engines. I am also a former CN employee and have spent a lot of time on trains. However, you covered many reasons as to why diesel is superior. Steam has extremely high maintenance costs. They generally don't go more that a few hundred miles, without shop time, whereas a diesel can cross the country, turn around and come back again. Also, notice how diesels are often paired, with a cab facing in each direction? That means they don't have to be turned. Steam requires a turntable or reversing track. There is also the flexibility. As you mentioned, steam locomotives were built for the various types of service, resulting in some that were huge and extremely heavy, to the point they were often limited to the tracks and bridges they could run over. In contrast, if you need more power with a diesel, just add on another unit. Also, steam cannot be operated as a multi unit, so you'd need a crew for each locomotive. The crew compartment comfort is also a lot worse for steam. In addition, there's pollution. Coal is simply dirtier than oil. Steam also requires frequent stops for coal and water and in some areas water is hard to come by. Another cost issue is the time it takes to bring a steam locomotive up to pressure, before it can even move.
Bottom line, as you so often mention, the reason is the bottom line. Steam costs much more than diesel to operate and that's what's important to the railroads.
Great points as usual!
I used to correspond with a marine engineer, who wrote once about the replacement of steam engines with diesel engines on a ship on which he worked. The steam engines were super-efficient QUADRUPLE compound units (high pressure, lower, low, very low pressure). Nevertheless, the fuel savings in the first year of operation paid for the diesels! After loving steam in my early years I have learned to like diesels, too. This has enabled me to enjoy my railfan journeys in the USA (I live in UK.)
that's a constant output.. and usually running at or below 17knts.
Yeah, diesels didn't need to outperform steam as it was so easy to just double head, and having more smaller units gave more operational flexibility. Hence why the trend for monster units like the DD40 never really stuck.
The iron horse went extinct entirely for economic reasons. They cost more than Diesel-Electrics for:
1) Locomotive Maintenance
2) Water Supply
3) Track Depletion
4) Car Maintenance (No dynamic brake means more brake shoe and wheel replacements.)
5) Availability (Mostly maintenance downtime, also it takes hours to fire up a "cold" boiler.)
As for performance, steam fared better than Diesels in passenger service, as steam provides a constant effort up to the speed where steam consumption outpaces boiler production. The Diesel is a constant-power engine, consequently tractive effort decreases with speed, but at startup the effort is only limited by adhesion. Since a Diesel's weight is 100% adhesive, it will produce more starting tractive effort than a steam engine of the same weight. It also has the smooth, steady pull of electric motors, while steam's herky-jerky cyclic torque makes slipping much more of a problem.
Many fine responses here, from people who know what they;'re talking about. I particularly like what @kc4vh has summarized above. Herewith a couple of additions to his list in favour of diesels.
2a) Under 'Water Supply', realize that besides maintaining the tracks, railroads also had to maintain a string of water towers along every track. Like today's electric cars needing recharge stations every couple hundred miles -- add up the *frequency* of needing to top up the locomotive's water, together with the *time* needed at each refill, and (for the trackside water tanks) another layer of mainenance costs. Especially to keep the towers working and full in cold winters, and across the deserts! That entire line item of cost disappears as soon as the last steam engine is retired from the line.
6) Distributed Power, which is now routine with diesels but never realistic under steam. Unlike items 1)-4) which are cost reductions, this is more a revenue enhancer, since it allows humungous length of train which steam power could never hope to match. Think of a train as an occupied block of track, moving across the country. If each such block contains twice as much cargo (each train much longer) and the blocks move at the same speed (since the number of occupied blocks has not changed), then distrubuted power greatly increase the freight capacity of the entire line, all the time.
7) Crew Safety, to which dynamic braking from diesels gives a boost. I have twice heard experienced engine crew mention safety as their big vote of appreciation for diesels. A related safety point comes from distrbuted power: if the engineer starts a panic stop in his cab, the end-train power unit also applies the brakes at the same moment. A mid-train unit applies brakes both fore and aft at the same moment. So a miles-long train stops as quickly as a shorter train without distributed power.
All valid! Great insight
EMD probably was permitted to build locomotives because some palms got greased! BTW, thanks for including a shot of the New Haven I-5. Beautiful engine.
You're welcome.. I like it myself!
Standardization.
Apart from the USRA locomotives, and even then you have like, over 10 different variants of those engines, every railroad would order unique locomotives to meet their unique needs. Once the engine was done and delivered it was essentially on the railroad to fix anything that went wrong with them, because the builder was now working on another relatively low volume design for a competing road that was different enough to not have compatibility.
And then you have the diesels. In the early days EMD makes a F for freight, a E for passenger, and a shunter. 3 different locomotives. Because every railroad buys the same 3 locomotives EMD can make a ton of the same thing, get really good at it, and maintain a aftermarket because they only have to support 3 designs.
If a steam engine has a boiler leak or something wrong with a cylinder, the railroad has to come up with a unique solution to that unique problem. If a diesel burns out a traction engine, buy a new one and slot it in.
Wrote this comment before watching, glad you hit that point In the video.
As to some of your questions, If I recall correctly both the N&W and NYC basically concluded that a steam engine would haul a load about as well as a diesel and that the costs of operation were more or less equal. The benefits were elsewhere. Considering that it is 2 different roads and 2 different applications they are being considered on I would think this lends a lot of credence to them being about equal over the road.
Also the big steam manufacturers were essentially gagged from developing diesels because a steam locomotive was a way to move material without using critical resources. The government did not want the builders to slack off on building locomotives in order to develop engines that used those resources when they should be building steam locomotives to meet the immediate demand. This prohibition from diesel development basically ensures that EMD (who was still allowed to build diesels during the war) would have basically a 4 year advantage on everyone else.
On point, as usual!
Also one MASSIVE selling point of diesel or electric locos over steam ones is scalability. You can just chain a bunch of them together and operate them like one loco whereas with steam you either had to get a bigger loco or operate two with their own crews at a decrease in efficiency.
For example in Russia, China and some other railroads you have 2-4 units (kinda like A+B unit consist) linked together permanently counted as a single locomotive. So you can scale the power in production a lot more easily by just adding a "B unit" in between the cab units and get more power without any change in design.
Yeah, they were many advantages for sure over steam as time went on, especially
FT mostly came as permanently coupled A-B sets. Multiple traction was considered from the beginning, and a lot easier to realise than in steam locomotives where in practice at least one person was required in each working locomotive (more commonly two).
So it was not necessary to build very large monolithic diesel locomotives. Though in some cases (the 8-axle dual engine locomotives of UP) it went that way in the 1960s/70s, it was considered more practical to couple up more locomotives for more power.
Besides the lower thermal efficiency of steam engines, it requires a lot more manpower, time and maintenance to operate. Bringing a cold steam locomotive up to temperature can take several hours. A lot of cleaning and lubrication is required every day. The time required for maintenance also means hours during which a steam locomotive and its crew cannot be used to pull trains.
Besides the fuel you also need to take great amounts of water along.
Some countries continued building steam locomotives after the second world war, mostly because they had great amounts of coal and didn't want to rely on imported diesel fuel. (And some electrified but that's a different story.)
All great and valid points!
"he who pays the piper (or counts the beans) calls the tune"
Unless you're an egotistical railroad exec foolishly spending millions on multiple Steam Turbine locomotives that weren't even tested... Something like that.. Money didnt seem to matter in those situations for some odd reason.
Railroads going with short-term costs instead of long-term costs
Actually they were looking at both extensively.. But I get what you mean.
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower my family has been working for railroads since the Civil War
@@brianwelch-qq3ti Holy Cow!!!
Thanks! I’m really enjoying your channel. Very informative with lots of excellent pics.
Thank You David!!! Very Much appreciated!! Sincerely! Do you have a video topic that you would like done? If so.. it would be my next video. Thank you once again!!
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Hello, many thanks for your message. I was going to ask for a video about the New York Central and you must have read my mind, as you've just released an excellent video about the Niagra class of steam locomotive locomotives. Thank you! Perhaps a video comparing the 20th Century Limited with the Broadway Limited would be interesting 🤔
I knew an old engineer who said they "felt like they had Cadillacs" when the first diesels went on-line in the 1940s and 1950s! They even smelled like new cars at first.
Four points to ponder:
"The Financials" trump everything on a railroad.
Diesels can be equipped with dynamic brakes. In mountain railroading that makes quite a difference, even more than pulling power.
EMD was allowed to build FTs during WWII but mainly for western railroads, where transporting water to desert engine terminals was a serious problem.
Charles Roberts had an interesting table in his B&O book "West End". A little hard to explain here, but the crux of the biscuit was that regardless of steam or diesel or number of engines in a train, about 2.5 cars could be pulled per powered axle over Newburg, Cheat, Cranberry, and Seventeen Mile grades.
Thank you for sharing.. Things to think about for sure!
Diesels didn't need to out perform steam on a 1 on 1 level. The jumper cable made it easy to string a few of them together and it still came out cheaper than steam. Now, with mounting environmental pressures and increasing fuel costs, it could be time for the electric locomotive (not these experimental batteries on wheels) to become the preferred power.
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with these days with the looming fossil fuel issue. If they are going to develop something like Natural gas, hydrogen..what have you.. Now's the time to build experimental locomotives. but railroads have never really been known for having foresight. So as I said.. this should be interesting.
I think, maybe not the greatest benefit of diesels, but definitely up there, is their ability simply clip together and multiply their output, while still being operated by one man. Then, with a lashup acting as one unit, can the diesel outperform a steam engine.
Cool to see you using images of Victorian Railways rolling stock, even if it's just a couple of little shunters. Makes me proud. 😊
I need to start looking more at CN, CP rails locomotives and European as well. Some good stuff and stories to be told with all of them as well.
Excellent Video. Thank you for putting this together for us.
However, I must disagree about steam being superior to diesel (or electric) traction in any measurable way. Let me present a few bits of history that may show why I'm so confident about it.
First - The Buffalo, Rochester, & Pittsburgh Ry.
It was absorbed by the B&O in 1930. The B&O, through the remainder of the steam era, essentially left the former BR&P as it was in 1930. They had a large fleet of 2-6-6-2's to handle most mainline freight from Punxsutawney, PA to Buffalo, NY, coal trains to Kodak in Rochester, NY, coal to Genesee Dock on Lake Ontario, and transfer runs to the NYC at Clearfield, PA. They primarily used 2-8-2's from Salamanca, NY to Rochester, NY and fast freights between New Castle, PA and Buffalo. They had 2-8-8-2's to push trains up McMinns Summit north of DuBois, PA. They also had a group of 2-10-0's that had been the helpers on McMinns Summit until the 2-8-8-2's arrived. They were used with many of the 2-8-0's not just for local and branch-line service, but also for main-line trains from Punxsutawney to New Castle, PA. This was due to the bridge over the Allegany River at Mosgrove, PA, which was built in 1903, being too light for the 2-6-6-2's to safely cross. They had to use several 2-8-0's or 2-10-0's, each with it's own crew, to operate this section of the railroad. Obviously, the B&O dieselized this section very early with EMD F3's F7's but they also dieselized the rest of the mainline to Buffalo as well with additional F7's. This also eliminated the need for helpers on the McMinns Summit grade. Most 2-8-0's were transferred to other divisions or scrapped. the old 2-10-0's were all scrapped. The oldest 2-6-6-2's were scrapped while others replaced the 2-10-0's and many 2-8-0's in branch-line service, especially on the coal branches around Indiana, PA. The 2-6-6-2's were eventually replaced by B&O EM-1's that had been displaced by diesels on other divisions. The EM-1's would soon also be replaced with the original SD-7 demonstrator that the B&O purchased as well as SD-9's, GP-7's, and GP-9's. The diesels solved several operating system issues by allowing the trains between New Castle and Buffalo to operate with only pickups and setouts at Punxsutawney and Salamanca. Also, the engine service facilities at every terminal were significantly reduced and the locomotive shops at DuBois were converted to produce and rebuild more freight cars, including the distinctive B&O "Wagon Top" boxcars. Currently, the Buffalo & Pittsburgh RR runs some of the heaviest diesels ever built (SD45's, SD40-2's, SD60M's, and now GE Dash-9's) over the Mosgrove bridge, now 120 years old, without any issues.
Second - The Norfolk & Western.
I'm sure you are aware, the N&W very impressively built their own steam engines, of their own design, until the very end of the steam era. However, very significantly, almost at the moment they agreed to merge with the Virginian in the 1950's, they started a manic diesel purchasing spree and began scrapping virtually new steam locomotives. The Virginian was actually in a better financial position when the agreement was signed. However, If the N&W could significantly reduce costs within the 2 years before the merger became official, the N&W would be the controlling partner. The efficiency of the newer diesels and reduced engine maintenance costs would only get them a very small part of the way to that goal. The cost savings, and surge in stock price, was almost entirely due to the savings achieved through reduced track maintenance. It is a simple fact that a steam engine, no matter how well balanced, by it's very nature, beats the track and other right of way infrastructure to pieces in a very short amount of time. That's why, in the steam era, there were track gangs about every 10 miles of main-line track. Reciprocating locomotives pound the rail head requiring a massive amount of maintenance. A diesel, with it's DC traction motors, does almost no damage to the track structure except the normal wear from flanges on the outside rail on curves.
No matter how I look at it, steam was doomed as soon as EMC, Winton, and GE (yes, GE. NOT GM.) created their first demonstrators.
Additional notes:
Baldwin and Lima-Hamilton failed primarily due to incompatibility issues but some significant engine issues as well. They both used pneumatic controls instead of electrical controls. This made it impossible to operate their products with any other manufactures product. It's unfortunate because Baldwins were especially known for their pulling power. They eventually fixed the issue but it was already too late.
Alco would be in a partnership with GE until about 1953. After that, GE started working on their own locomotive designs but Alco continued to purchase GE electrical equipment. The issue Alco had was the 244 engine. They eventually corrected the multiple mechanical issues and also produced a much more reliable 251 engine but, again, it was already too late. The railroads were much happier with the EMD GP7's and GP9's with their very reliable 567 engines.
That was an outstanding read! Thank you!
Love the steam, but maintaine intervals are a part of performance.
Agreed!
Ultimately, it was the fact that railroads actually had competition by the 1940s that they had to start abandoning steam locomotives. When you have a complete monopoly on moving freight, you don’t need to evolve. Profit margins got smaller and just saving a little on total cost was the difference in staying in business or going bankrupt. And then only the giants survived. They swallowed up the smaller railroads or merged with them. 4 railroads haul most of the freight in the U.S. Union Pacific, BNSF, Norfolk Southern and CSX are the only ones left. A few smaller local lines of course still exist but these 4 do most of the freight hauling in the U.S.
Right... And when you look at the age of steam and you can see why those railroads emerged as the victors... You can see solid management and sound decisions throughout their time. That is, outside of the M1 .. I had to throw that one in there. Cool locomotive though!
diesel was cheeper, but steam had massive tractive effort due to their sheer weight and the power that you could from those pistons
They def. had tractive, adhesion weight and in many cases factor of adhesion over easrly diesels. Not the case today though.
Hi, I worked with a couple of guys that in the past were Maintenace men on the railroad, they tried to explain to me how the diesel and steam compared because of my love for steam engines. they told me that a steam engine could start a load that it could not pull, and the diesel could pull a load that it could not start. I'm still thinking about that.
Rich
That's a cool quote!
Total operating cost of diesel electric locomotives is what killed the use of steam locomotives period.
The amount of time, money and labor needed to keep steam locomotive road ready far exceeded that of diesel electric locomotives when compering annual locomotive mileage.
Yep..That's reason 1 for sure
The “magic” of the diesel-electric locomotive is not its internal combustion engine, but its electrical transmission and resultant adhesion with 100% of weight on drivers. For the Railroads the utmost attractions were versatility and job elimination.
Oh... it's understandable why Diesel won.. Even the early models, But I do think that steam could be made competitive today with some R & D involved. And I do think the PRR was on to something with the S2 had they the money to carry the development forward... They didnt.. And why they invested in it in the first place.. I dunno.
I do know this: my dad was in a railroad battalion during the Korean War, and you had some serious grades over there. He would tell me, and I confirmed this, about the Army's diesel locomotives getting hung up on hills and mountain passes and had to have steam locomotives pull them up the grade.
That is a matter of tractive effort and weight. If you put too much weight behind any locomotive it will stall. Diesels have more horsepower available at lower speeds than steam, but a stall is from lack of tractive effort or weight on the rails. Steam locomotives can be designed for a specific speed, either low speed pull or high speed horsepower, but it is very difficult to get both from the same design.
The traction motors of a diesel produce lots of heat at low speeds, which can cause them to fail (burn out) if used at very slow speeds. This was a very real problem in early diesels, and there was a minimum speed that had to be exceeded. If you couldn't do that then you needed to shut them down and add locomotive units to reach and stay above that speed. Or split the train into sections that the locomotive could handle. Steam locomotives did not burn out, and you could maintain 5 MPH all day long if needed.
Essentially, below 5 or 10 MPH both diesels and steam are limited by tractive force, not horsepower. Tractive force is also limited by weight on the driving wheels, so you cannot get much more than 25% of that weight converted to real pulling power before the wheels slip. The main advantage of a diesel is in the midrange speeds, 15-30 MPH or so. Where the high-horsepower steam designs shine is at higher speeds.
In addition to what Steve said.. I believe they were running Mikes or Consolidations as well. Not exactly super steam there.
During WW2 factories were re-tooled to produce what the armed forces needed. This was why all new locomotives needed to be approved by the War Production Board.
If left independent ALCO, Baldwin, and Lima could have continued to develop the steam locomotive. The ban on new designs stopped that. It was a matter of resource allocation and time management. The pre-war designs already had a proven track record, and the manufacturers already had the plans, molds, and tooling to produce them. Building a steam locomotive was also cheaper than a diesel.
ALCO was already competing with Electro-Motive to produce diesel locomotives. Diesel development was also halted, with ALCO lagging behind. ALCO was allowed to build diesel switchers during WW2, while EMD got the road freight business producing FT locomotives. But quantities were limited by the War Production Board.
Great stuff!
The war between diesel and steam wasn't won on the road, both are very capable. It was won in the shops.
Steam is not coming back. Coal is no longer an acceptable fuel, and diesels are much more efficient with oil. We may see a shift to straight electric at some point, either overhead or, if there's a major breakthrough, battery.
I cant see electrification being done on the old method. It's costly, ugly looking and vulnerable to mother nature. So as you say.. Major battery technology, alternative fuel such as Hydrogen or even some sort of natural gas.. even solar on a battery system.
You said it! Cheaper to operate, Not more powerful.
Yep!
Thanks! Love the videos, hoping the best for you!
Thank you very much! I really do appreciate the love you all are showing me. I'll be okay.. It's just a new chapter into the unknown. That's always a scary thing for anyone, not just me. I'll be out of work for a spell for health.. But it's not the end of the world for me. Did you have a video jn mind that you wanted done?
Another thing what knocked steam locomotive in favor of diesel was the blinding exhaust it produced, especially in roadside rail applications. But I could see steam traction coming back as an alternative, though tank engines first.
I think todays tech could pull it off for sure.
I had the same story on ships, but with even more mixed results. A diesel locomotive could (ideally) operate 20 something hours a day, for weeks between service, and has dynamic braking, a big cost saver on brake maintenance. A steam locomotive operated less than half a day, between daily cleaning, fuel and water stops, and necessary maintenance. If 844 needs its rods greased every 150 miles, fires dumped daily, tubes washed, the rest checked, and hours to bring it back on line for service, how bad were the older engines? On Steam ships, operation was 48 weeks a year, Kill the fires for annual dry dock, and go right back into service Tubes are cleaned in service, and no ash pan to clean.. Schedule was God, and steam ships can run at 100% or more to meet schedule at a horrible fuel cost. Diesels, can't, are always stopping to pull pistons for scheduled maintenance (ring wear and liner inspections at around 15000 hrs, depending on make and model). They only operate in the 85% power range, as if pushed harder, tend to wear much faster, or break down. Since diesels save fuel, more cargo is hauled, the cost of cylinder oil more than offsets the cost of the fuel. What killed steam was the cost of boiler maintenance. A somewhat specialized industry. Now we have emissions to further change the picture. Have fun
Aside from dramatically increased thermal efficiency, reduced heavy maintenance, reduced service, and greater availability, diesels are a scalable modular form of motive power. You can't think of them in terms of a single unit. They are as many units as you need to perform a job operated with a single crew. Each steam locomotive requires a dedicated crew. Steam locomotives require helper operations. The reason steam locomotives got so massive was that they were trying to combine multiple steam engines into a single unit with a single crew. This also makes those massive units far less adaptable to other roles and limits where they can operate. You really can't use a BigBoy for switching. Diesels win this fight pretty easily, even in the 40s and 50s. If you read the NYC report cover to cover comparing the Niagaras to the diesels, all of this is pretty clear. Diesels definitely won that contest. When you consider all of the additional people and infrastructure required for a steam operation compared to diesel, it's an easy decision.
Well then you also had increased track maintenance with the monster articulated Steam as well. Good stuff!
@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower That's definitely another major consideration, dynamic augment hammering from steam engines, even the better balanced ones, is brutal on the track. Steam locomotive wheel slip at starting or at speed can be pretty destructive as well. You also have the issue of those long rigid wheelbase machines trying to straighten every curve and causing a bit of wear in the process.
@@dtj9923 Can you imagine the track maintenance before roller bearings?
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Are you thinking in terms of hotboxes and locked up wheels?
First off the FT only had 1350 hp, not 5000. And when you compare a locomotive like the FT against a steam locomotive like the Big Boy you are not being fair. Apples to apples would be a FT against a smaller 6 driver steam engine. An FT AB set would be equivalent in tractive effort and hp as a 4-8-4 or similar steam locomotive. So to go against a Big boy you would be working with an ABBA set of FTs and then performance starts getting equaled. Yes it’s not a 1 to 1, but then again the big boy is essentially 2 engines under one boiler. Diesels were easier to maintain, cheaper to fuel, had longer service intervals, didn’t require frequent water stops, and could be reconfigured to suit any job easily. Also one crew could operate multiple engines, where you need a crew per engine with steam. So yea, all around cheaper, more flexible and easier to maintain. That’s why Diesel won.
The FT was marketed as a 5400 HP permanently coupled A-B-B-A locomotive, with 1350 HP in each unit. They had drawbar connections between units instead of standard couplers. Later in production there were a few exceptions built which were not ABBA. The railroads began splitting the original sets too, desiring the flexibility to mix and match with newer diesels designed with MU (multiple unit) capability, which was not a standard feature yet. This required installing standard couplers and compatible MU connections.
Diesels are you guy's arena. I only know a handful of them to speak about.
@@TheRailroadCrossing-SteamPower Don’t get me wrong, I love steam engines. The N&W Class J (611) is my all time favorite locomotive. It’s just that diesels had a cost and flexibility that beat all. It’s kinda like sail vs power in the marine world. Power is simple, go anywhere and brought boating to the masses… but turning off the engine and letting the wind push you through the water is simply an awesome feeling.
I the war years my grandfather said they rebuilt all old steam locomotives
Yes, the way I understand it, anything that could possibly be used, was rebuilt for service, or placed back in service regardless of age.
Remember the saying, A steam locomotive will pull a train it can't start and a diesel will start a train it can't pull
James, great video! Just subscribed👍🏻
THANK YOU!!
something that you are forgetting it that the really big steam locomotives were far heavier. if you match the weight of a bigboy you have 2 to 3 big diesel locomotives which have double to triple the power output and tractive force
And also, didn't UP 4014 recently get called to rescue a stalled diesel powered freight train?
Indeed it did and it performed extremely well. I seem to remember that freight was 11t that it rescued.. Plus the consist it was already pulling.
Whose whistle is it playing in your openings?
Daylight 4449
yes the performance of steam is higher the harder you get it going to effect obviously you only get soo much water to steam no matter how effecent it is for a given size though a loco boiler can make and put out more steam for its size then a simaler stationary boiler I am told this is due to its drafting and the faster it runs the more steam sent up the blast pipe create more draft as well as the onrushing air above the stack, and the hotter the fire the dryer the superheat and more work you get out of the volume, and the more cut off you can use, some as little as 20 percent and this also takes off the back pressure it has to fight on the 2nd stroke of the cycle which robs power from it.
this is also is what happens to electric engines they fight themselves the faster they go though depends how they ar geared, this is also though what gives them the dynamic brakes to help slow it down using the resistance of the electric motors, but steam that generates more power the harder you get it going, and there is soo much that can be done to make steam more effecent and get even more power out of something,
but the reason diesls won was cost you didn't need the special structures to service them, didn't need relubed as much though the nw j got a good systom of getting 500 miles with its system, and you had major work get though from the niagras going 6 days and serviced in one day, though it took brave men to do the job as the hot crew
diesle though you also didn't need a fireman for, it was cleaner and didn't pound the rails like a steamer though again good balancing took care of much of that , it was mostly cost of operation, but on the other hand even an advanced steamer is tougher and easier to repair that was the theory porta looked at in out of the way places you didn't have all the electroncs or expensive diesle that had to be imported and you could take and make an engine that used slack coal in one of thee most remote places with baaad water and make it perform as one of the highest horsepower to weight engines ever built even against diesles, and it used a local fuel but it took fine control of understanding of all the advancements put into one of his engines but it had way less mainanance and as gary bensman who worked with him told me porta would say you get a little gain in efficentcy here a little there and it adds up, and would spend very little time in the shop
All valid points
Can't wait to see how the new T-1 from the T-1 TRUST turns out. It was a tragedy the PRR failed to preserve even one T-1, Q-2 or the S-2 Turbine. With todays technology we might make some good advances in the problems that plagued these marvelous locomotives. My dad worked from the great Enola yard up till 1963 and I still remember standing on the highway bridge at the south exit of the yard when a big lugger came under blasting smoke and steam in front of my face. Dad said the T-1's were beautiful loco's that to look at spoke "speed", same with the GG1's! Had the Pennsy allowed Franklin Equipment Co. to experiment more with the poppet valve materials to eliminate breakage at high speed, and Altoona Shop adjust suspension to eliminate slipping of engine drive units we would have had a dependable "speed demon". Several times a Franklin technician secretly rode behind T-1's west of Crestline Ohio to check the speed and timed the run with a certified RR watch at 140+ MPH when engineers were making up time. Perhaps today we might try titanium valves for strength and lightness? As for the S-2 turbine being a "steam hog" at starting and low speed, Westinghouse and Baldwin could have redesigned the gear train to use a two speed forward gear setup, low gear for starting a train, shifting to high gear at running speed to eliminate steam inefficiency. There was already a lockout mechanism so the reverse or forward turbines couldn't be engaged when the other was in use.
During the war oil was a necessary war material especially Bunker-C while here in the East coal was in abundance. Perhaps we will be in that situation again, in another oil crises, and coal may come to the rescue!
I tend to think so when it comes to incorporating modern technology. Mr. Wardale had already proven it could be done.
I really enjoy your videos. I have recently started collecting brass trains, and you have covered many of the large, weird, and wonderful steam locomotives that interest me most.
I am sure your next video will be interesting to me whomever it may be selected by.
In lieu of "my" video, I jusk ask if you might venture a bit further afield at some point - not right now necessarily and not on my behalf - and do something on weird and amazing rolling stock, especially one-offs like the "Whopper hopper," the Queen Mary d.c. flatcar, and etc.
There is, of course, stuff out there I am aware of that is on point, but comprises generally brief videos covereing several for a minute or so each. For example, by Southern plains railfan.
In any case, this is not my request as such; rather, just a suggestion you've probably both heard and considered heretofore.
I wanted to make a small contribution and I was already considering it when I saw your introduction to monetization.
I sincerely wish you the best.
Thank you!
Dale Siemer
(see-mur - I do not know how to type diatric characters, but that should be close enough.) I care just a little; you, perhaps a bit less; and everone else, not at all regarding how you pronounce it.
Thanks, Valued host.
Dale
Dale, first of all... THANK YOU VERY MUCH!! I actually do care a lot more than most. Enunciation, pronunciation and stuttering were a rather major issue for me for a majority of my life. Was picked on quite a bit growing up. But, believe it or not.. I would have guessed See-mur straight away :) Weird rolling stock it is! And I have a policy on this Super Thanks deal that it takes priority over my own projects. So your video is up next. Thank you once again!!
The demise of steam was controlled by the railroads bottom line.
I suppose "higher performance" would depend on what they meant by "performance", what metrics they were using to measure it, and what they were comparing to what.
It doesn't really matter though. If a diesel can do the job, and do it cheaper, then how it does the job doesn't really matter practically. I expect that a diesel with more power then the giant steam engines could have been built, but why would you? As you said, standardization was a diesel advantage. Buy one kind of locomotive, then dispatch however many of those you need for each job. The giant steam locomotive really weren't an optimal engineering solution and they were highly expensive specialist machines. The only reason to build them was to avoid needing multiple crews for multiheading, but diesel lets you multihead with a single crew, so why build a giant diesel?
I don't see how fossil fuel shortages or phase-out favours steam. They're less thermodynamically efficient so you'd need even more fuel and I don't think any of the advanced steam technologies have an advantage over diesel in most applications. I think the only practical alternative to diesels is mass scale electrification.
Everybody loves a steam engines. They're cool, but I think steam is mostly dead as a practical power source for transportation and is going to stay dead. Love them like sail boats and mechanical watches and film cameras.
The railroads today probably then too main job was moving heavy bulk freight as cheap as possible and still make a profit and stay in business..
oh they are doing great at that these days
I think performance is about how you want to measure it. Sure, Steam locomotives per unit were far more powerful than Diesels of the day. But that’s just looking at the hard performance numbers.
A great example is modern airliners. They are more fuel efficient, have a greater range, and generally have a greater capacity which means less cost per passenger. At the same time though they are slower, have a worse climb rate, and their Take off and Landing performance is worse than their older counterparts. So modern airliners have worse “performance” but only in the metrics that airlines today would see as antiquated.
I’m sure if you looked past the hp and tractive effort of steam locos and diesels, the diesels would have a cheaper cost per freight ton and therefore “perform better” in they eyes of a railroad.
Well, there are several metrics that the diesel advantage could not be overcome by steam. Otherwise steam total elimination on the railroads does not occur. I do think those advantages can be challenged with todays technology incorporated into steam.. But even then.. rebuilding the infrastructure for steam.. Would likely eliminate those gains. Therefore still not feasible.
I think diesel absolutely outperformed steam on grades. The simple reason being, you can hook up 9 or 12 of the things or however many it takes to grind up the hill at 12 miles per hour. All on one crew. Diesel will eke over the top with less horsepower than steam, and you can easily add on as much horsepower as you need. With any train, you need to schedule as enough power per ton to pull and start on the worst grade on the route, with a margin. With steam, that means you give the train a huge amount of power, because anything that'll start the hill will also blast the train at freeway speed. With diesel, you can specify a power to make any grade but still only top out at 35. Since railroads do not care at all about speed, they're happy with that deal. More tonnage per horsepower. Steam pulled better in practice because the minimum acceptable horsepower was higher.
And yeah, one Allegheny will out-pull any single diesel, but it still loses because you'll never run a train with 5 Alleghenys, but 8 diesels is just Tuesday. Scalability and performance is 100% tied to cost, otherwise you really would just quintuple-head with Big Boys and pull anything anywhere. Diesel scales better. If the microchip had been invented before internal combustion, allowing one guy to run and fire 6 steam engines, dieselization may not have happened. After accounting for the cheaper up-front purchase price of 1 steamer vs 4 diesels, and the cheap fuel they used, running costs for steam weren't THAT terrible. The NYC found their Niagara compared pretty favorably in lifetime cost. But you just can't beat 1 crew doing the work of 4.
Don't you think that the NYC Niagara didn't level the playing field?
Against early diesels, I think so...
Steam is the most efficient form of power.
If not consistent
If steam recycled it's water through low pressure turbine-electric (after the double cycle pistons) and radiator cooling, it would have been more competitive. Steam out of a electric power plant is 47% efficient.. the diesel had (has) the better track bogie lay-out. Actually the combination if diesel with heat steam recuperation would be best.. along with a capacitor-battery-traction (-water) car as traction many tines is the main problem on the steel to steel layout.
Yeah and they likely would have a recirculation system with todays tech being involved.
During WWll the locomotive type diesel electric engines were needed for use in submarines, a favorite being the Fairbanks Morse opposed piston two cycle model, great power in a compact package.
The rapid building of new steam locomotives to older designs was that the big builders still possessed patterns for castings and complex boiler plate forming dies, plus the foundry, forging and machine tool capacity to build steam locomotives, along with industrial plant and older employees skilled in their use who could be called back after the depression plus train new helpers, the (HOLDERS ON)!
Diesel engines required a new set of skills and more unique and precise machinery that was in demand and allocated by the WPBoard on an as- needed quota system, and training skilled operators didn't happen overnight. In particular the fuel injector systems which had parts made to the ten-thousandth of an inch or better!
Good info! Thank you!
Well, diesels are cheaper, but steam locomotives are a lot stronger and more powerful, not to mention some steam locomotives were capable of outmatching the diesels, like the NYC Niagara's
Several were able to outperform the early diesels in termS of just that.' Niagara of course being one of them
Steam locos were stronger than diesels in the 40s and 50s, but not today. A new tier 4 GEVO can produce 200,000 pounds of tractive effort starting; a big boy produces 135,000.
Why not combined steam engines?
I would kind of disagree with your statement, that diesel didn't outperform Steam. When you look at the strongest Steam vs the strongest Diesel, then yes. But if you look at two trains with the same amount of HP, then no. On equal footing, the steam train can at best perform as well as the diesel train. If you look at lower speeds, the steam train can't produce the full HP and will be worse than the Diesel.
PS: Electric is better than both.
I love both
lets not forget ww2 brought some really powerful steam locomotives
Performance wise, that's what I was complaining about in the video in favor of Steam.. FT wasn't gonna out pull a Y6B for example. Not the early versions FT I am referring to
yes definitely steam was the best way definitely.
Well, By the time the war ended, steam needed innovation as the current technology they had was nearly tapped out as far as being able to improve on it. That's what the Pennsy in particular was trying to do.
Steam all the way.
The big boy can out pull 4 deisal
Seems like the steam engines started burning heavy bunk oil way cheaper than diesel fuel. What saves on cost is number of people a railroad hired to run and maintain trains. Seems much waz due to govt oversight and not funding rail like we funded airports
Question is... does bunker C save enough??