Steam locomotives were a little bit before my time, but when I read about them I regret that I wasn’t born 10 years earlier to witness steam in its final days. Based on what’s been written everyone missed steam…railroad workers…railfans…very little negative has been written about steam other than basic facts about steam verses diesel efficiency. So were there any groups who were happy to see steam go? There must have been a few railroaders who would have been all too happy to go from running a drafty old steam engine to the relative comforts of a GP9…yet you’d never guess it by reading the press.
How about the dispatcher? No more planning for water/fuel stops to start with. As you mentioned, the engine crew had a lot better enviroment to work in. The folks who want steam back are the ‘foamers’ who want to relive the ‘good old days’…
Jim
You are hitting on a big subject. The bean counters had company on this. Better utilization of equipment, property, structures and crews; lot of efficiencies such as faster schedules in many instances, longer trains, better and more comfort in the cabs, no strain by the fireman in having to shovel, cleaner ballast and structures, fewer locomotives to roster, motor age technology…and there are probably hundreds more reasons.
That’s true about the foamers…but from what I read alot of the old railroaders were sad about steam’s passing. Ed king, a few months back, wrote a column in trains about his experiences on a steam locomotive with the N&W. and when you read the Trains mags from the 60s and 70s…these issues were still very foused on steam, and the writers were often railroaders and others who seemed to regret that steam is gone. Personally I would jump at the chance to fire a diesel verses an old coal kettle…but the old timers didn’t seem to be all that keen on diesels.
I LOVE steam! I ride steam anytime I can get a chance…I’ll even go out and stand by the track to watch an engine go by. Do I want steam back in regular service? NO! They were dirty, if it was coal powered very dirty! I love museums, but I for one like progress…
There are probably countless housewives living close to railroads who hung their laundry out to dry who were very happy to see the end of black clouds of smoke blowing over their clotheslines.
That’s true…after all railroading is first and formost a business. And one would think the press in the 60s would be replete with stories about “look about how good we have it now” instead of the backward look at how we miss steam. I find it is a little surprising that railroaders as a group weren’t more forceful in their acceptance of diesel…but then agiain they may have been concerned about job losses.
Ha ha…maybe so…but those housewives were probably getting washers and dryers back in the 50s…so they may not have noticed much of a difference. By the way…hanging clothes out to dry is way under rated…I prefer hanging out my own laundry…you can’t get that nice clean smell from a dryer!
Steam to Diesel was not so much about relative efficiencies, comfort, etc. It was about lower operating costs and the ability to eliminate a large part of their workforce.
I’m sure every fireman on a coal fired steam engine was happy to see them gone, that is until a few years later his job went with it. Engineers themselves mostly preferred the diesels, much cleaner and more comfortable, but some missed the challenge of getting the best performance out of a steam locomotive. I think a lot more had a bit of nostalgia, especially after a few years when some of the downsides had faded in memory. They would enjoy running one on a special post-steam charter but not as a steady diet.
The track forces probably noticed their job get easier without the dynamic forces of 2-cylinder steam engines continually pounding the rails. It is because bridges had to be designed strong enough to handle the dynamic augment that most are still good enough to handle today’s much heavier freight cars.
Bottom line is about the only people unhappy to see steam go were the employees who saw their jobs disappear with it and trackside fans who only saw the glory, not the dirty gruntwork. In this case I don’t think even the bean counters appreciated how great the savings would become with diesels.
John
Had a boss at one time that when he found out I was a railfan began to invite me to lunch and to his home and such for social gatherings. Wasn’t long before he found out I liked steam locomotives and that was the total end of any cordial relationship. To his credit I will say that it didn’t change the boss/employee relationship, but I was kind of glad when he retired not long after.
I suspect that at least some railroaders look back fondly at steam in the way I remember army basic training. You remember the challenges and the crazy things that happen and the hardships kind of fade away.
Personally, I miss lying awake as a kid, listening to the locomotives at work, but many other people were probably glad to have more quiet nights.
Interesting answers so far. One artifact of operating steam came comparatively early, and that was the prohibition of steam engines inside of certain bounds due to smoke ordinances. Or, anti-smoke ordinances. I believe this was the case in NYC, and probably a dozen others? It meant that the RR’s had to run two systems with hand-off points to get ‘stuff’ into the City. I would have thought the bean counters and unions would be on the opposite side of wanting to see steam disappear so that some of that duality could be eliminated?
Maybe I’m showing my lack of understanding…
Crandell
Maybe so… would be interesting to know if dieselization was much discussed among stockholders of the day. These days stockholders appear to be much less interested in their holdings… Were railroads like the IC or the Canadian roads who hung on to steam longer than most adversely affected on stock markets?..a point to ponder.
The press is a lot more than Trains, or back then Railroad Magazine. I bet if you looked at copies of Railway Age or other trade magazines/papers from back then, you won’t see many articles lamenting the passing of steam.
Cabooses (as opposed to “shoving platforms” etc.) are another thing looked at with nostalgia, even by railroaders. But when it comes right down to it, those who used to ride them at the end of mile long trains don’t want to go back to them.
We all seem to remember or think about the “good old days.” In reality, no one really wants to go back to that time (whenever it was) completely. When everything is considered, the good old days weren’t always so good.
Jeff
I recall seeing minutes, reports, or other accounts of the discussion at annual stockholders’ meetings from back then, which ranged from about “How soon will you finish dieselizing ?” to “It’s a shame what you’re doing to the old steam locomotives”, though the former were more common, especially when touted by the management.
Notably, I don’t believe the N&W or a few other hold-outs was adversely affected at all on the stock market. It took external events such as a few nationwide coal strikes, financing, tax credits and the like, and some other changes in the background situation to induce Stuart T. Saunders and the then-N&W management to suddenly decide to dieselize. There was an article or two in Trains about exactly that back around then . . . [:-^]
- Paul North.
A quote from engineer Pinkerton at Silvis, IL (who was very close to reitrement) in 1975:
“Kid, the worst diesel we got is still better than the best steamer we ever had, Don’t report nothing wrong with this engine”
( an NW2 with no cab heat in early January).
After WWII Cost Accounting methods greatly improved, and therefore more realistic cost’s could be determined. I recall reading that after the CPR had been dieselized for a few years an interesting idea occurred. Steam engines were never as expensive to run as the diesel salesmen had claimed, and diesels were never as cheap to operate as the diesel salesmen had claimed either.
Going out on a limb farther the article claimed that because the steam infrastructure; water towers, coal docks, engine servicing facilities, had long since been fully amortized they were no longer a capital cost. Since this infrastructure was there, and serviceable, maybe the CPR should have run its’ smaller engines through one more major service cycle, lasting into the late '70’s then, for branch line and secondary mainline service. The increased train size possible with diesels; lower cost per carload, would only be utilized and therefore noticed on the mainline and dieselization was the correct way to go.
I still remember when my father came home, I guess this would have been 1976, and telling us there had been some memo, or other notice, that after 10 years of operating SD40’s and -2’s that the railway had finally found an engine that was fully capable (power+reliability) of replacing the 5900 Selkirk 2-10-4’s that had come off the Laggan Sub. in the 1950’s. Many diesels had come and many had gone by that point.
One final note Ulrich
Indeed - that’s one reason it was referred to as “the wrong side of the tracks.”