The cost of each.
STEAM DIESEL
( Matnience)
(Fuel)
(rail battering)
(Spare parts)
( Ect)
Diesel is cheaper.That is why the railroads switched from steam 45 to 50 years ago.At first,diesels cost about 3 times as much as steam engines,but were much cheaper in the long run because of lower maintinance.Diesels are also much easier on the tracks.
Ships have also switched over from steam turbine to diesel[:(].
Yes, Diesels did pound not the tracks as the drivers of the large steam locomotives did. Also, most of the diesels parts are interchangeable so a broken part could be fixed easily whereas a steam locomotive part had to be special ordered.
It’s 2005, and I really can’t believe that question would still be asked. Must be some really bored railfans out there…
Actually it was a closer run thing than most think. Paul Kiefer was supt of motive power for NYC did an exhaustive series of tests right after WWII. The NYC was uniquely positioned since they had modern steam engines (Niagaras), electrics and both FT and E-7 diesels. It turns out that electrics were the most economical until you factored in the cost of construction and maintenance (ask the Milwaukee). The E-7 and the Niagaras were a wash…the 2 unit E-7 was cheaper than the Niagara but the Niagara out performed the 2000 HP diesel. When matched with a 3 unit diesel the Niagara was marginally cheaper but the diesel out performed it (again, marginally). Three things settled the dispute in favor of the diesel. First was the performance characteristics. The diesel was able to exert its full horsepower from the start while it could take a steam engine until it got up to 45 or 50 MPH to reach its full HP output… Second was availability. A diesel running between Harmon and Chicago needed only to have the fuel, lube oil and water checked before it could head back while the steam engine required major (and time consuming) work before it was ready for another trip. The final killer was the infrastructure that the steam engine required, not just the roundhouse but all of the water facilities (not to mention the time used up in periodic stops to replenish water).
A issue that was raised in TRAINS bears repeating here. It was noted that the comparison was between the Niagara and a 6000 HP set of three E7’s. Most NYC trains were being dispatched with two-unit sets, which were outperformed by the Niagara, which in turn raises the question: Was the Niagara too big for the service in which it was used and was NYC paying for horsepower on the Niagara that it didn’t need?
The railroads themselves answered this question 60 years ago.
Diesels are cheaper to operate and maintain, better reliability and availability.
Dan
Realistically the diesel is cheaper.
Higher availability.
Much lower maintenance costs.
Less pounding on the rails.
Though I often wonder: Had GM and Firestone not come onto the scene diesel technology might have developed more slowly. So in the meantime steam might have advanced considerably more. It stands to reason that steamers would have become far more efficient had railroads continued to purchase them from manufacturers. ALCO likely would have stayed on top of the food chain.
Just a thought!
In comparision Steam is labor intensive in it’s care and feeding…Diesel is not.
60 years ago the Railroad saw the economic handwriting on the wall and thus we have diesels powering the railroads today. Even if the act of heating the water to create steam was not labor intensive…the mineral residue from the water the was turned into steam would have made steam more labor intensive than diesel.
Steam was a manageable technology for its day…its day is long gone.
Electric is cheapest in high density. Steam is expensive due to costs of running the shops and higher overhaul costs
You can also add more diesels when you need more power without adding more crews. Less personnel cost. The real killer cost of everything.
I have often wondered this myself. The Depression was not kind to steam advancement. Had the same amount of resources that advanced the diesle been put into steam, might steam have been able to hold out longer. The N&W Js and the NYC Niagras were fine machines and very reliable. Can you imagine if another 20 years of intensive development had gone into them?
Gabe
I’m curious as to what railroads would do if the world’s oil supply ran out. Would they make the large investment for nationwide catenary? Or would they use a new generation of steam locomotives?
Brennan
Diesel is cheaper, they are made from that thin tinney stuff. Steam is made from real heavy metal[:o)][(-D]
At the same time, though, steam had matured quite a bit from its birth. 100+ years had yielded quite a bit of improvments. While there was still other improvments that could have been made, they weren’t as dramatic, and wouldn’t have dropped the price of steam ultra dramatically.
Diesel, still retaining some of its youth had a LONG way to go in development. I mean, look at a 4 unit FT set. While revolutionary in its day, they’re as distant in the past as steam is now. I don’t think steam advancement could have even begun to compete with diesel advancement in that time frame.
Designing a modern steam engine thats able to compete with latest offerings from GE and EMD would be all but impossible unless oil prices really take off. And it would have to be HIGH! Unlike in the early 70’s when OPEC had railroads thinking about steam again, there is virtually NO infrastructure left for steam. There are virtually NO large steam locmotives available. There are virtually NO individuals who could form the crew of a large steam locomotive. In the early 70’s, at least a little of this steam base was still around.
I would love to see it…but the chances are very very very slim.
Chris
Denver, CO
No, they would just start making diesel fuel out of coal. It is a relatively simple process, the Germans used coal-to-diesel to power their tanks during WW 2. A number of coal-to-diesel plants are expected to open in the U.S. over the next few years. Synthetic diesel is actually much better than the “real” stuff from oil anyway. The only thing that has prevented its production in the past is the relatively “cheap” cost oil.
Definitley Deisels. Just thinking about maintaining a steamer makes me cringe
They can also make a useable fuel from rapeseed oil.
The only question I have is what coal would they use? The Powder River stuff is actually pretty awful stuff to burn, I’m told. Power Plants use it because it’s SOOOOO cheap that they can adjust their plants to burn it. Would extracting a diesel substitute be possible from such low quality coal?
Biodiesel is starting to come on, too. I know of a couple places around Denver that sell both the blended, and the pure biodiesel. I still like the idea of making fuel from homegrown, replenishable sources. And I really like the idea of making farm land worth more as farmland, rather than a place to put starter castles and Walmarts.
Chris
Denver, CO
A litle reading assignment is in order here. Each of you get yourselves a copy of Eric Hirsimaki’s “Black Gold, Black Diamonds” volumes one and two. These are chronicles of the PRR’s reluctant adoption of diesels. Remember that Pennsy had an interest in coal production in its region, so it really wanted to keep running steam. But the comparison left them no choice. Hirsimaki’s volumes have the real numbers, so you can read them for yourselves.
For example, running a freight train from Harrisburg to Chicago required ten steam locomotives relaying the train from terminal to terminal. A single F-3 lashup ran straight through without change. So the F-3s replaced not only ten steamers, but also all the shops and other support facilities for the steamers, after they acquired enough diesels to convert every train on the route. The savings were staggering.
Another example: During the late forties and early fifties, when the PRR was struggling to stay in the black, approximately half of its net income was attributed to savings from diesel operations. To put it another way, the whole railroad would have collapsed into bankruptcy had the diesel not saved it. (Well, maybe it didn’t really save the PRR, but it delayed the inevitable for a couple of decades.)
Hirsimaki’s books also have charts taken from the railroad’s own records which break down costs of ownership of each type of locomotive according to service (switcher, freight, passenger) by locomotive class. You can see for yourself the actual numbers comparing a J-1 vs. a three-unit set of F-3s for example. In no case does steam win the fight. It was a classic no-brainer.
Finally, a disclaimer: I am in no way related to Eric Hirsimaki and have no financial interest in his work. I have never even met him. But I recommend his books because they are not just the usual picture books, but real histories filled with fascinating facts taken from real railroad records.