I think you got it wrong. Its actually two 2-10-4 barely crawling versus 1 sd70mac flying at 30 mph.
Unless you want to convince me that your 2-10-4 can do thr job that two locos equivalent to big-boy cannot do.
When FT diesel first appeared it was better or equivalent then steam in every category.
Just look:
Big Boy had 135000lb tractive effort and ~6000 hp. Weighed 540 tons. (11.11 hppt)
ABBA set of FT was 5400 hp and 480 tons. IT also did about 240000 lb of tractive effort. (11.25 hppt).
It was a completely different quality with much lower costs and elimination of water stops (which yields giant fuel savings). When F7 was first availible it was game over - steam lost, the new king was elected.
Well, the “bottom line” shows something else if you actually take the time to look at it.
As railroads dieselized, their rates of return fell. By the time they had fully dieselized, they had less than half the rate of return as at the beginning of the process. Those railroads that dieselized fastest had rates of return that fell the fastest.
The fact that the reality is exactly the opposite of what you state begs the question as to “what is so hard to figure out”…
WWII was the “engine” of innovation…it brought along changes faster across the board. I believe this applied to steam engines being changed over to diesel power much quicker than would have “normally” been done.
"…Why diesels replaced steam. Compelling economics ultimately forced the replacement of steam by the diesel. Even though diesels were more costly than steam engines in terms of purchase price and dollars per horsepower (the average unit costing about $160,000 after World War II), they offered lower maintenance costs, longer hours of service, and lower fuel consumption. And, they could be operated in multiple-unit without extra crews. It was their impact on the bottom line–especially in an era when competition from trucking and airlines was growing–that finally made them irresistible to railroad management. "
For me, what clinched understanding why diesels supplanted were some figures contained in Kenneth J. Robertson’s book “The Great Western Gas Turbine locos: a myth exploded”.
Whilst the primary purpose of Mr Robertson’s book is to explain why the two gas turbine locos ordered by the Great Western Railway in Britain proved to be a blind alley, in doing so Mr. Robertson quotes some interesting facts and figures concerning not only these two locos but the two LMS Prototype diesel loco’s, #10000/1, which were the first main line diesel locos to run in Britain. The LMS expected them to match the performance of their highly successful “Black 5” 4-6-0. In terms of fuel consumption figures quoted by Mr. Robertson, the diesels beat the “Black 5” hands down. On top of that, the lower labour costs and greater availability meant it was no contest. But the real clincher was that the two diesels could also be coupled in multiple and when so doing match the performance of an LMS “Coronation” Pacific which most UK railfans would agree were probably the best express passenger steam locos ever to run in Britain.
As for the gas turbines locos their fuel costs were on a par with a Black 5, though they would also have the same labour saving costs advantages as a diesel. So the deciding factor in favour of the diesel was fuel economy.
"…Why diesels replaced steam. Compelling economics ultimately forced the replacement of steam by the diesel. Even though diesels were more costly than steam engines in terms of purchase price and dollars per horsepower (the average unit costing about $160,000 after World War II), they offered lower maintenance costs, longer hours of service, and lower fuel consumption. And, they could be operated in multiple-unit without extra crews. It was their impact on the bottom line–especially in an era when competition from trucking and airlines was growing–that finally made them irresistible to railroad management. "
Sol,
Yes there was a dramatic downturn in profit durning the process, but the cost-benifit analysis the companies did said that would be ok, as you’d gain many manhours back from the process. crews went from 3 to 2, maintence offices were shut down and mechanics fires. all in all, you should look at the number of employess pre-deiselization and post and you’ll see where the companies profited.
Seen the studies, did a couple myself. The declining employment numbers was a phenomenon that began in 1945 and continued unabated to this day; nearly the same rate throughout the entire period, even though dieselization only happened once. The problem. however, is a financial one. The machines were far more expensive than steam; the economic service lives were substantially shorter, and nearly everything associated with dieselization was financed, placing an unprecedented financial burden on American railways.
Apparently, they couldn’t fire people fast enough.
“…they offered lower maintenance costs,…”
Over the life span of a road diesel, this did not prove to be true, notwithstanding strenuous public relations efforts to the contrary. A highly complex machine with many moving parts, the failure of any one of which can lead to catastrophic failure, does what highly complex machines do when they age: they fail. Of the three motive power types, at 8 years, an electric has about one-third the maintenance costs per hp as a road diesel, and a steam engine was about half of the cost per hp. The maintenance curves for both steam and electric at that point were for practical purposes flat, whereas the diesel hp maintenance cost curve kept rising at an ever increasing rate: usually compelling the decision to replace the power with a new generation.
Very interesting, this all begs one question. Backwards as they are, what took the chinese so long to change to diesels?
I also wanted to make the point on profit, passenger service took a big hit in the 1950’s when more people could afford cars due to the good ecomonomy.
“Now, railroads were demonstrably worse off at the end of the dieselization process. Is that a good support for the argument that dieselization was a positive financial benefit to railroads? Where then, was the financial benefit?”
…As this change over process was taking place there were other factors involved determining the financial progress or lack of in the railroad business…
Probably he’s talking about Albia, Iowa, a climb of 4.8 miles or so, around 0.6 to 0.65% compensated average. And apparently he means the 2-10-4 hit the bottom of the hill at 30 and the SD70s go over the top at a crawl. But did the Q run 10000 ton trains eastward across Iowa? Coal trains? If coal, where’d it come from?
Well, that would require financing a whole new set of equipment, which was the problem in the first place. Making the same mistake twice doesn’t necessarily fix the first one.
Technically it is doable, and from an operating standpoint, would be substantially cheaper to operate.
Compared to the 6% thermal efficiency of “old steam,” modern high-pressure uniflow steam engines are yielding efficiencies up to 21%. Most of the components to build an efficient and state of the art modern, heavy-haul steam-turbine-electric locomotive already exist, offering outputs as high as 7500-Hp or even 15, 000-Hp.
A ton of coal costing $28 holds an energy content of 22-million to 26-million BTU’s of energy, 20% of which could theoretically be delivered to the drawbar as horsepower in a heavy-haul modern steam turbine locomotive. Diesel fuel costs some $1.80 per gallon (130,000 BTU’s). Diesel fuel at 22-million BTU’s would cost $304.60, 36% of which would be delivered to the drawbar.
The 22-million BTU’s would deliver 1730-Hp to the drawbar in the steam locomotive (1.8-cents/Hp) and 3300-Hp to the drawbar in the diesel loco (7.5 cents/Hp).
So, it would certainly be cost effective from an operating standpoint, but somebody has to market one to get a price, and of course EMD’s big advantage early on in the diesel-changeover was GMAC.
A ton of typical steaming coal contains about 22 million BTUs of energy, regardless of whether you burn the coal in an hour, a day, or a month. One horsepower is approximately equal to 2540 BTUs per hour.