It is well known that during WWII the War Production Board vetoed the production of some diesel locomotives in favor of steam. One the happy consequences of that decision was the B&O’s acquisition of the magnificent EM-1 2-8-8-4. (Happy for railfans, not so for the B&O) The question is, why? Was there a shortage of production line capacity due to the Army’s need for tanks and other vehicles? Or how about a shortage of copper, needed for diesel wiring, but not needed for steam? Or was it something else? Does anybody out there in forumland know the real story?
During the war there were shortages of all critical materials…the WPB was a effort to maximize the effective use of all the critical materials.
You’re saying it’s well known EMD could have made more FTs than they did, except the WPB told them not to?
Or maybe you’re saying they told Alco and Baldwin not to take the time to develop road diesels until after the war?
Timz,
I said what I said. No more. No less. Do not put words into my mouth.
Fuel, which was rationed during the war, was also a consideration. Military vehicles did not use coal, the diesel at the time was still an infant in the world of railroads. Many railroads at that time were not fully equipped for maintaining diesels or had fueling depots around in great abundance. Steam on the other hand was still the main source of power and the infastructure to keep them running was well in place.
There were seveal factors, fuel being one, use of materials another, deciding what locomotive purchase was for war effort and what was for railroad bottom line was a consideration, too. There was also a feeling of the diesel being a new concept, not totally proven, so why not just “stick with the steam engine we know” was often heard. The supposed mindset was to keep as much money and action working toward the war effort rather than for consumer expansion.
War Production Board controls limited diesel locomotive production starting in 1942, and was generally lifted in 1944. In the case of diesels, existing orders could be completed in 1942, but any new order needed approval by the board. Any & all strategic materials were monitored by the board(plate steel/copper/aluminum among others), and there were shortages as production of war materials took precedence. The M&StL even looked at 2-6-6-4 steam rather than ABA sets of FT’s. The need for new bridges/turntables to support the steamers resulted in the FT order.
EMD was limited to FT production(and 567 power plants for maritime/stationary power plants). The reason was EMD was the only diesel manufacturer that had a ‘road freight’ diesel in their catalog. Most of the EMD FT production went to the AT&SF(320 units worth). The AT&SF ‘trans-con’ was a vital link to Southern California, and ran through ‘bad water’ districts.
Alco & Baldwin were limited to ‘switcher’ production(EMD was not allowed to build their SW1/NW2 switchers). Alco also was allowed to build a military version of the RS-1 for the Trans-Iranian railroad. Alco and the New Haven also petitioned the production board and were allowed to build ‘dual service’ DL109’s. Late in the war, Alco also was given permission to built a tested set of road freight engines(Black Maria). The RS-1 production gave Alco an ‘edge’ in the road switcher market and they fielded the RS-2 right after the war. Alco’s real problem was not EMD’s massive lead in road freight engines, but the problems with the ‘244’ series engine.
Jim
And there was a gasoline shortage. I came across my older brother’s ration card. Everybody had a farm buddy that would come through in a pinch.
Steamers used coal, no shortage there; now what did diesels use?
Just asking.
Another reason for restrictions on diesel locomotives was that railroad-sized diesel engines are also used as marine engines. 567 and OP engines found their way into a lot of ships, the use of the OP engine in submarines is fairly well known but a lot of destroyer escorts, LST’s, etc. also had diesel engines.
So you refuse to say whose diesels got vetoed? Anyone else know?
TMZ, it was done on a contract by contract basis. As a rule, road units were not favored but switchers were. And it depended upon the needieness of the road in relation to its contribution to the war effort in the area of transporting war goods. Thus a road with 50 year old steam power which was falling apart and had war sensitive traffic would more likely get what it needed, even diesel, than say, a large well equipped Class One. TRAINS Magazine has done numerous articles through the years…check some of the indeci (sp?) for details.
I think I see the confusion-- the original poster said B&O got 2-8+8-4s because “the War Production Board vetoed the production of some diesel locomotives”. But far as we know WPB never vetoed any FT production; they likely were delighted to see EMD crank them out as fast as they could. The WPB might have vetoed sending FTs to B&O, but the FTs the B&O had hoped for got built all right, and sent elsewhere.
But no articles saying WPB restricted FT production-- right?
LaGrange could not expand its production facilities and most were needed for diesels and generators and other equpment for war purposes, including landing craft, patrol boats, portable generators for field use, etc. Other than that it built FT diesels as quickly as possible. In addition to the AT&SF, the Southern and B&M were able to get some. Also diesel fuel was in short supply. Saudi oil went to the African and Italian campaigns, often refined at Haifa, then under British rule. The American motorist was very limited in the amount of gasoline he could use (A-cards) unless he was a doctor or somone similar. But there was no rationing of coal. Meat was rationed.
Author Richard Steinbrenner details the War Production Board (WPB) in his book The American Locomotive Company A Centennial Remembrance. In his Chapter VII, ALCO and World War II from pages 193 to 233 there is mention of the WPB and how it effected locomotive production. From what I can piece together from reading Steinbrenner’s work the War Production Board required locomotive builders to obtain prior authorization from the WPB before committing to production. The WPB controlled the raw materials for production, provided the plants and tools for production and ensured that there was a trained and skilled work force at the production plants.
In the WPB there was a Transportation Equipment Branch and part of that Branch was the Railroad Industry Advisory Committee. This Committee created a plan for locomotve production and a system of priorities for that production. What happened to a particular railroad’s request for new motive power was subject to the WPB Plan and the priority given to the request.
Steinbrenner cites various Committee letters and records in this chapter that reflect a serious approach to writing about the WPB. To my knowledge these records are available for study at the National Archives.
Ed in Kentucky
Excellent input from everyone. Thanks to you all. And a special thanks to SSW 9389 for referencing the Steinbrenner book. I just ordered a copy for myself. Can’t wait to get into it!
My understanding is that it was not that there was a shortage of gasoline, but that rubber, which could only be obtained from Japanese-held areas in Southeast Asia, was in a critically short supply, so to save rubber, gas was rationed.
IIRC, submarine warfare in the Atlantic forced the railroads to ship most petroleum products in tank cars, even as crews were frantically working to build the first oil pipelines.
tpatrick: I think you will find Steinbrenner’s Alco Book fascinating. In regards to the WPB there were so many factors to be considered as to what was to be built that it can be seen why there was a need for it. For example the WPB determined production capacity for the locomotive builders and assigned work accordingly.
Ed in Kentucky
Alco had been supplying the U S Navy with Model 330, 531 and 538 engines prior to the war. During WW2 the Navy continued to use Alco engines. The 540 welded block engine was used in patrol boats, mine sweepers, mine layers and tugs.
Alton…, yes, rails moved petroleum products in tank cars because German U boats lurked off the Atlantic Coast.
EMD did have a significant lead in diesel engines due to the large production of 567’s for the Navy, which was important enough that the WPB allowed EMD to do development work on the 567 during the war.Improved reliability was probably as important to Navy as it was to the railroads. Alco, on the other hand, was not allowed to commit significant resources to developing the 244 along with not having a large installed base of the 567 to spot problems with the engine. Had the 244 been as reliable as the 567, Alco would have taken over the post WW2 passenger market as the PA was a lighter and less expensive locomotive to build than an EMD E of the same horsepower.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in the road switcher market if Alco had a reliable prime mover immediately post WW2.
- Erik