Did lack of standardization contribute to the demise of steam?

While some here have pointed out good examples of where the RRs attempted as best they could to come up with steam “standards” the real clear advantage diesels ended up with wasn’t so much standardization, as interchangeability. While early diesels were often built to order individually, eventually they were all being built on assembly lines with components that were interchangeable between the same engine model and thats major components like trucks, generators, hoods, blowers, electrical components, etc. something similar in a steam engine would have required a major rebuild. The also required far less personel to make the repairs and maintain the locomotives. Now with diesels if you had a lot of the same model locomotive on your roster your ability to quickly make repairs or replace parts makes the overall costs of operating diesels far far more productive than holding onto your steam roster.

Railroad shops and individual builders for cars and especially locomotives had what was called in-sourcing. Mostly called inside contracting. When the shops had an upturn in work they would contract with crews from the in house work men that would earn extra money working on the overflow of work either before or mostly after their regular shift. The men would use the shops to erect and build locomotives to the contract. This worked out great for both the builder and the workmen. The builder or railroad would enter into a contract with the crew leader who was responsible for his crew to build or assemble to a specified time frame. The contractor could hire and fire whoever he wanted to get the job done in the quickest time. He was also responsible for paying his employees at contract end. The railroad or builder was responsible to ensure parts and equipment were available to fulfill the contracts. Most of Baldwins steam locomotives in the early twentieth century were erected using inside contractors. If the contractor failed to live up to his end of the contract I bet his regular job would also be in jeopardy. Union shops did not like the inside contracting but there was nothing the unions could do about it and most of the contract employees were union men on their regular job and got paid very well when the contract was finished.

Pete

Heat loss killed steam. Us geezers just do not want to admit that. We insist on living in the past. Yes, steam power was great to see in action.

I have been to Mt Washington cog railway and the steamers are slowly on their way out. The diesels they run now are much more efficient. Push a button and they go.

Rich

And that was just another nail in steam’s coffin. A measurable percentage of those 5,000 were probably directly involved with the servicing of steam locomotives. There were very significant savings available by no longer having to operate coaling towers and ash pits, and the hordes in trades like boilermakers and such could be largely furloughed. All those roundhouses that have vanished were filled with the staff necessary to keep the steam engines running. The diesels could just roll on by.

Even if you could outsource the various tasks, the contractor would have to have nearly as many men, and be located in or near each terminal.

Just ask any operator of steam today, and they will tell you how labor intensive they are. In the steam era the same manhour equation was made of lots of men, to keep the hours as low as possible. That is one of the reasons restorations and overhauls today take considerably longer, since there is no longer an “army” to do all the work.

John

Remember that a steam engine was like a tailor-made suit. A railroad either came up with their own design, or worked with a builder to design an engine. Then the builder built exactly what the railroad wanted. So a railroad might go to ALCO and have 10 engines built, and later, if ALCO was too backed up with orders, they might go to Baldwin and have 10 more engines built using the same blueprints and specs as the first ten. Other than the builder’s plates, the 20 engines may be virtually identical.

Of course, the USRA engines of 1918-19 were an attempt to standardize engines, such as having several wheel arrangements using the same boiler etc. That actually worked pretty well, but once diesels really got going I don’t think anything would have stopped the conversion.