If steam was so darn powerful and popular, why the rapid demise? If it was that good wouldn’t someone have found a way to keep it competitive/viable?
Unfortunately not. The real problem was that the manufacturers wanted to sell engines, the more of them the better! For example they did everything to get UP to purchase 130 Challengers and Big Boys instead of maybe 100 modern 2-8-8-2s which would have done the job much more efficient thus cheaper. There are much more examples like that. Look at L&N: they needed a strong engine for heavy train service even on grades with no emphasize on speed, but they bought a high speed flat-land 2-8-4 never being able to show what they were designed for. Instead they used three of these engines to drag the coal trains. At that service they got only about half of the possible horse power - and this at excessive need for fuel. Same with the C&O 2-6-6-6. An ideal engine for heavy trains to be run on flat divisions at high speeds. But C&O sent them into the mountains with grades, sharp curves, and low speeds of course. Their 2-10-4 was a design 11 years older, lighter, only a simple two cylinder engine - and did the job much cheaper than the 2-6-6-6. These are some striking examples, but there are much more.
Remember N&W didn’t dieselize because it was unhappy with steam’s performance itself, but because no other road used any steam power devices, facilities and parts any longer - causing the price for these things to rise extremely to a point where it seemingly was no longer senseful to stay with steam.
After the US roads completely dieselized unfortunately it swapped over to most other countries - being fashionable to have diesels - or anything “more modern” than steam engines. Even the French state railways were not interested in purchasing entirely new and very modern steam engines after the genius Andre Chapelon showed most impressive the possibilities steam still had.
Remember there are some very few M.E.s around the world still doing research to refine the classic steam locmotive design. I would not call them foolish! The contrary is the case. Most wel
Steam engines only use about 7% of the energy you feed it with for traction. The rest goes into the air as heat.
Electric engines uses about 97% (I can’t find the exact percentage just now, but something like that.)
Diesel about 60%. (As far as I remember)
Steam services also need a lot more infrastructure; water posts, fuel (coal/oil) and a lot more employees for maintenece and support.
The cost of steam is just to big. And the efficency to low. It is no doubt that you can build a steam engine to pull the biggest trains. It’s just to expencive to use.
/Lars Fredrik
Sorry for the rusty english…
Let’s not neglect the diesel’s obvious advantages. By about 1940, the western lines, Santa Fe in general, were thrilled at locomotives that didn’t have to be shoveled out every night, that didn’t require the maintenance of “jerkwater towns” just to keep cruddy, alkaline-ridden water on hand to feed the steamers every 40 miles or so. In addition, the diesels proved to be strong and reliable, and it was understood that they could in the future be geared for freight or passenger, for traction or for speed, and that (GM at least) booster units could be added and rational need for adding them not hard to calculate. And it took veteran long-distance engineers about half an hour to train for operating a diesel.
Then World War II intervened and the federal government stopped the bankruptcy/liquidation of some steam-engine manufacturers; in fact, forced major steam manufacturers to stay in business and stay manufacturing. Lima and Baldwin come to mind; if there are others or if I am wrong, readers, let us know please. Perhaps the question ought not be just why diesels took over so rapidly; looking at it in terms of why steam hung around so long is another valid aspect. World War II was the era of hybrids; note the now-iconic photographs of Santa Fe’s crack Chief, a diesel-and-streamliner consist, being helped by powerful but powerfully polluting steam engines over Cajon pass.
Come about 1946 and the other major lines, first western, then the large eastern ones, took a good hard look at diesel-vs-steam. Some coverted more rapidly than others; the comparatively coal-free Southern Rwy had gone all-diesel by the early fifties; the Norfolk & Western, which was all about big coal, didn’t pull its powerful passenger locos the Class J’s until 1958, three years after Stuart Saunders had taken over the railroad and immediately contracted with GM for a diesel fleet. An
Steam was highly inefficient. It was only it’s most powerful at top speed. They also were high maintenance, and expensive to maintain. Also, you had to “faness” a steam locomotive just right or it wouldn’t perform.
Verses a diesel-electric locomotive. They are very reliable, low maintenace machines. Also horsepower was always at a constant. For instance with the F-7, 1500 horsepower at 1 mile per hour was 1500 horsepower at 70 miles per hour. Not the case with steam. As the pressure built up the speed increased which inturn increased the horsepower.
Diesels also didnt need the same “finess” that a steam locomotive did. You just let off the breaks and notch up the throttle. No regulator and valves to adjust constantly.
As per the popularity, steam locomotives were most popular with railfans and the railroaders. The railroad executives were more than happy to be rid of them in favor of the new fangled diesel locomotives if it meant a few less bucks spent on maintenance in the long run.
Steam engines are beautiful, living, breathing creatures that really make you pay if not properly taken care of and they all have a personality of their own, my favorite types of steam trains are the ones from the Golden Age of steam railroading(1800s), with all their brass and Victorian splendor. But big railroad companies don’t care 'bout beauty; effeciency and saving money is more important.
Steam is far more interesting to watch in operation.Diesels don’t even come close.Unfortunately diesels are far more efficient.from a cold engine,a steam engine takes a minimum of about three to four hours to build up enough steam to operate.Once a diesel is started the engineer does the required saftey inspections and when the air is built up in the brake system, the loco is ready to run.Steam has to stop peridodically for water,and stops for fuel more often than a diesel.
Not often mentioned, but a factor, was the difference in marketing strategy between the steam builders and EMD (which carried the other diesel makers along on its coattails.)
The steam builders were NOT big on chasing orders, and they built each order of locomotives as a custom design. The attitude was, “Come, tell us what you want, and we’ll build it to your specifications.”
OTOH, EMD was a part of the GM corporate culture - aggressive marketing of a standard design, with only a limited group of options that were easy and inexpensive to incorporate into an order.
The steam builders waited for customers. EMD, and then the other diesel builders, went out and looked for them.
It’s interesting to note that the big steam builders were all building diesels exclusively long before the last steam was built in the US. Of course, Roanoke was part of its only customer, and the N&W stayed committed to steam long after everyone else succumbed to the siren song of EMD.
Chuck
quote:
It’s interesting to note that the big steam builders were all building diesels exclusively long before the last steam was built in the US. Of course, Roanoke was part of its only customer, and the N&W stayed committed to steam long after everyone else succumbed to the siren song of EMD.
Chuck
I was under the impression that Lima and Baldwin were still manufacturing steam locos during and shortly after the end of WWII in September(?) , 1945; and they pretty much had to do so under federal fiat.
Am I wrong in these assumptions? Also I don’t know where Alco fits in. - a s.
PS: Just a side observation: The N&W not only overhauled, but built some of its J’s.
Somehow, that is a new thought to me. I did not realize that the steam manufacturers were not profitable before or during the war. I understand how a company that is not making a profit can remain in business (essentially the difference between profit and cash flow), but that distinction would be much more applicable to a business with a very large fixed plant (a railroad) than it would be to a business of more modest infrastructure (an equipment supplier).
If we assume that Lima or Baldwin’s cash flow tracked pretty closely their profit, then to keep them in business the government must have subsidized them in the war years. Did this occur and I just never heard about it? Perhaps there is some other factor I am missing here?
All of the Big 3 steam locomotive builders were involved in a lot more than just locomotive building. A prime example would be Lima’s cranes and power shovels. Baldwin and Lima were both strongly committed to steam almost to the bitter end. Lima was becoming established as a switcher builder prior to its absorption into Baldwin and may have been able to improve the engineering on the Hamilton engine. Baldwin’s locomotive business was becoming a smaller part of an otherwise reasonably profitable firm and may have stuck with steam as late as it did only to wring every last possible dollar from that market. It was also burdened with a facility (Eddystone) that was much larger than needed.
The trials and tribulations of Alco’s steam-to-diesel transition are best described in Steinbrenner’s excellent work.
I don’t think profitabitlity was the problem. I’d bet Baldwin, Lima and Alco had decent balance sheets during WWII. What I’ve always read is that since they were prevented from building diesel electric road locomotive during the war, it gave EMD a big head start after the war was over. EMD had a mature, well tested product ready to sell while Alco, et. al. were still doing design and development.
If Alco had gotten lucky with their 244 engine design, they might have been able to hang in there.
The N&W didn’t build ‘some’ of its Js - it built ALL of its Js, and As, and Y5/Y6/Y6a/Y6b’s, and 45 S class 0-8-0s (the other 30, Baldwin built, were purchased almost new when Chessie dieselized their switching operations.) The last of those 0-8-0s was outshopped in December, 1953. The last Y6b had rolled off the erecting floor a few months earlier.
The big three steam builders had delivered their last reciprocating steam locos years earlier. The only steam locos built outside of Roanoke in the decade of the '50s were STEL - 3 for Chessie, and N&W 4500 (aka Jawn Henry.) Steam turbines are great in stationary electric powerplants, but trying to scale things down to fit inside the standard railroad loading gauge, then make the turbine and water tube boiler robust enough to stand locomotive service… Not a big winner.
Chuck
I can’t speak to the examples of the L&N or the C&O, but your UP anecdote needs some clarification. Yes, the 1st generation “Little” Challengers were ALCO designs, but the UP was looking for fast freight engines for use between Ogden & Green River. 2-8-8-2s could do it, but were not optimized for it. 2nd series “Jabelmann” Challengers were UP designs, and were used as intended: Flatland runners. They were fast freight and passenger locomotives. The Big Boys generally handled shooters west of Cheyenne, and the Challengers generally handled them east. They were definitely what the railroad chose.
Chances are that builders would rather do everything to sell 2-8-8-2s to the UP because of economies of scale.