Steam demise

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
21

I follow you dti406 but the records I’ve seen and read about show that in many cases the very last steam locos in operation were the older workhorse 2-8-0s and 2-8-2s. It was so on the New York Central and a number of other roads. And some were switchers too (NKP). I was told by those in the know that the reason for this was the older engines were simplier, cheaper and easier to get a few more miles out of while the super power engines had already been relegated to the dead line. On the Wabash, the last steam in operation were 1899 built 2-6-0s, (1955) but that was because of bridge weight restrictions that even the lightest diesels were limited to.

Victor A. Baird

Fort Wayne, Indiana

22

Interesting that you picked that example, since it illustrates the NYC’s tendency to overestimate diesel capability. They compared one 6000 to two E units (total 4000 hp.) It was shortly discovered that three E units were needed where a single 4-8-4 would do. (Two Es were roughly the equivalent of a J3.) When some hero finally re-ran the numbers with an E6a-b-a combination the Niagara won hands down. By that time the last Niagara had become frames for Detroit automotive products.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September 1964)

23

I would have to politely disagree with you there, LION

I just paged through the 1941 Locomotive Builders Cyclopedia and there was an index of over 150 locomotive parts suppliers in the back of the book.

Everything from staybolts to seatboxes, superheater headers to headlights there was a manufacturer, and a few competitors, to supply these parts.

Yes, the bigger roads did much of their own foundry and machine work. Altoona bult hundreds strike that: thousands of locomotives from the ground up.

But, if you were so inclined, you could buy complete boilers, (Vulcan Iron Works); frames, (Buckeye Steel Castings or Commonwealth); Driving wheels, boxes, running grar, (General Steel Castings, Franklin, Standard Steel Works) there were five manufacturers to choose from for pilot beams and front couplers.

Add to this partial list there were manufacturers for injectors, stokers, reverse gear, drawbars, boiler lagging, whistles, air pumps, speed recorders, valve pilot, low water alarms, thermic siphons, gauges and water glasses, flues, feed water heaters… the list goes on.

Prime Manufacturing Co. made cab windows and the little frames that the ICC inspection report was kept in.

I’m just pointing out that there were literally hundreds of manufacturers and you could “nearly” build a steam locomotive from a catalog of parts from outside manufacturers.

Anyone who is a student of the steam locomotive should avail themselves of at least one copy of a Simmons-Boardman Locomotive Cyclopedia. I have the 1941 edition which also covers early Diesels and has some beautiful color renderings of those classic paint schemes!

Happy railroading! Ed

24

Steam was way too inefficient. Too much heat loss for one thing

Diesel engine efficiency increased over time and was much better.

Old timers forget, everything evolves.

When was the last time you saw a steam operated car on the road? Maybe Jay Leno’s steam operated car. lol

Rich

25

That’s very true, Ed. But that was 1941 when nobody had dieselized completely yet. After the War, the Monon and NYO&W dieselized as fast as they could in order to cut operating costs. The larger roads wanted to follow suit, but had too many steam locos and facilities to replace quickly. B&O wanted FT’s in WWII, but had to buy EM-1’s because of WPB restrictions, and wasn’t able to afford full dieselization till 1958. Erie and Southern locomotive development stopped by 1930. They both knew they needed to replace their aging steam fleets with SOMETHING, and they knew the steam locomotive wasn’t going to be developed much beyond its 1950 level of development. Even if those roads had bought efficient and modern mainline steam engines, they knew that then-current technology wasn’t likely to produce a steam locomotive that would be efficient in the yards or branches or on the local freights. NYC’s Niagaras were great, but NYC had lots of lines where an H-5 Mikado made more sense than a 4-8-4. So those roads would have been forced to have two locomotive fleets: steam on the mainline and smaller diesels for everything else. No way that could be efficient. The companies that produced parts and supplies to support steam knew that the future demanded change, so they wisely began to phase out and reduce production of products that supported that technology. After the early 1950’s, railroads that stuck with steam (NKP, N&W, IC) knew they had to adjust to these realities. FWIW, I miss steam too.

Tom

26

Good thread with some good insight; I enjoyed reading this one. -Alex Warshal

27

I got an extensive tour of the back shop at Steamtown, not to long ago. A lot of work required on steamers.

Rich

28

Thanks for the info. Had no idea that happened. Interesting.

29

I have always been a huge diesel fan but really enjoy learning about the steam era. This has been an enlightening thread, very informative. Well done all!

Happy modeling!

Don.

30

So true, Tom. You make some very good observations in your post. I just wanted to comment that there certainly were many suppliers to the railroad industry and the science of steam locomotive manufacture was one with a broad field of manufacturers all competing to get the attention of the Chief Mechanical Officer and the Road Foreman of Engines.

You make a valid point that WWII changed everything! Manufacturing processes, mass production (on a scale never before seen) and refinements in internal combustion engines brought on post-war changes on the railroad, and in every industry, that were unheard of until then.

I feel that there were many factors at play in this changeover from steam to diesel and some may have had more of an effect than others.

The boardroom is where these decisions take place and in the early years of railroading the boards were made up mostly of died-in-the-wool railroaders and engineering men who came up in the ranks of the company. Seems to me that not long after the War, the directors began to be culled from law schools, Wall Street and big banks. No romantic sympathy for steam from these guys. We’re here to run a business and if we can move a ton of freight for 3¢ instead of 5¢ and the diesel can make that happen… so be it.

I believe a few railroads in the eastern coal regions held on to steam a bit longer, not wanting to step on the toes of those very lucrative coal customers but, in the end, we know how this played out.

Of course we have the luxury of looking back on these events knowing full well what the outcome was but for the railroad managers — who tended to be a stubborn bunch not too readily swayed by new, somewhat unproven, technology — didn’t have a crystal ball and their decisions would have had serious consequences IF their gamble on the diesel would have proven wrong. I&

31

Larry nailed it, its always about the financials when it comes to a business.

32

I have always been a huge diesel fan but really enjoy learning about the steam era. This has been an enlightening thread, very informative. Well done all

Don

Thanks and thanks to every one who posted