Topics

[Topic Closed] [GandD] great video of up 4014 - totally unrelated to g & d (but of interest to all railfans)


Russell Courtenay
 

Guys, sorry, I’m going to have to close this topic. 

I love this discussion, it is not too far off topic, but it is getting a bit heated. 

I really think we observers see- all these facts come into play along with many other (some unknown) factors in the end of steam. 

Many love steam power, doesn’t mean Diesels are less good, we are just saddened to see steam machines cut up by the 10’s of thousands. 

Russell Courtenay
Solemnity and profundity are sublime in inequity. 


On May 13, 2020, at 2:14 PM, Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:

I’m pointing out that those “facts” leave out a LOT of “facts”.  It is also always suspicious who creates “facts” and for what purposes.  How they are presented.  What are omitted.  And what are included.

 

If that study was the do all and end all of the competitiveness of steam versus diesel, it is inconceivable there would have been the rapid abandonment of steam that occurred.

 

I have already listed a myriad of diesel-electric advantages that the chart doesn’t address at all.  The conclusion that “steam is better” based on that chart requires ignoring all those other advantages, as that chart does.

 

Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Randy Lee Decker
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:00 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] great video of up 4014 - totally unrelated to g & d (but of interest to all railfans)

 

Ohhh dear...  the facts are the facts.  the study was done.. I simply posted them.  I am not arguing with anyone here, please don't do this.  I have no interest in it.   If anyone simply read the costs for the steam and the costs for comparable Diesels (3) pulling similar loads the truth is all there in B&W.    Just simple fun facts.  I honestly thought they were well known. 

 

Randy 

 

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:45 PM Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:

“Nothing to debate really”?  MANY other “real differences” were the aforementioned ability to multiple unit diesel-electrics and many more aforementioned very important differences like eliminating water stops and lower weight.  Something not aforementioned is that you can pretty much turn on a diesel-electric and be on your way, but not at all true with a steam engine.  And they are easy to turn off.  Easy to change for different service with different gearing.  All weight is on driven wheels.  And the EMD FT introduced dynamic braking (a bit of a game changer) as demonstrated in 1939.  (There is some possibility of reversing valve gear to have the equivalent of compression braking in a steam engine, a little like the “jake brake” in trucks, but it quite touch and has some problems.  There is also the “water brake” scheme which I don’t think was used much anywhere.)

 

And the notion that accountants made the decisions to switch to diesels ignores the fact that most railroad presidents at the time approved such decisions and were typically long time railroaders with lots of railroading experience having often worked up the ranks.  They looked at the finances, to be sure, but not purely from an accountant perspective.  Like most long term entrenched businesses, they had a lot of entrenched inertia investment into steam and initially resisted change.  They had accepted diesel-electrics for some switching and for some passenger, but strongly resisted them for heavy freight based on their false belief that diesel-electrics weren’t up to the challenge.  Even the most extreme steam sycophants at the time were roundly proved wrong about that.   Also, the big three steam manufacturers, with inertia of their own (to their ultimate demise), kept arguing steam was still superior.  But the advantages of the diesel-electric became so obvious that the decision to change became obvious and the change over remarkably massive and quite swift.

 

Had WWII not hamstringed the steam locomotive manufacturers into being restricted to make steam only while EMD had clear sailing for diesel-electric development and production, Lima, Baldwin, and Alco might have had a chance to better compete in the diesel-electric market.

 

John Allen had the luxury of letting his interest in steam rule the day because he made all his rules.  If he had to deal with the actual realities of real railroads, the G&D might well have been fast becoming dieselized.  But I have to admit that the G&D roundhouse with its interesting garden tracks (exterior storage tracks) is a more interesting seen than a boxy diesel maintenance building.

 

Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer 

 

 


Randy Lee Decker
 

Heated?   I thought it was finally something interesting myself.  


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:41 PM Russell Courtenay via groups.io <walruswebtech=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Guys, sorry, I’m going to have to close this topic. 

I love this discussion, it is not too far off topic, but it is getting a bit heated. 

I really think we observers see- all these facts come into play along with many other (some unknown) factors in the end of steam. 

Many love steam power, doesn’t mean Diesels are less good, we are just saddened to see steam machines cut up by the 10’s of thousands. 

Russell Courtenay
Solemnity and profundity are sublime in inequity. 


On May 13, 2020, at 2:14 PM, Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:

I’m pointing out that those “facts” leave out a LOT of “facts”.  It is also always suspicious who creates “facts” and for what purposes.  How they are presented.  What are omitted.  And what are included.

 

If that study was the do all and end all of the competitiveness of steam versus diesel, it is inconceivable there would have been the rapid abandonment of steam that occurred.

 

I have already listed a myriad of diesel-electric advantages that the chart doesn’t address at all.  The conclusion that “steam is better” based on that chart requires ignoring all those other advantages, as that chart does.

 

Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Randy Lee Decker
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:00 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] great video of up 4014 - totally unrelated to g & d (but of interest to all railfans)

 

Ohhh dear...  the facts are the facts.  the study was done.. I simply posted them.  I am not arguing with anyone here, please don't do this.  I have no interest in it.   If anyone simply read the costs for the steam and the costs for comparable Diesels (3) pulling similar loads the truth is all there in B&W.    Just simple fun facts.  I honestly thought they were well known. 

 

Randy 

 

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:45 PM Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:

“Nothing to debate really”?  MANY other “real differences” were the aforementioned ability to multiple unit diesel-electrics and many more aforementioned very important differences like eliminating water stops and lower weight.  Something not aforementioned is that you can pretty much turn on a diesel-electric and be on your way, but not at all true with a steam engine.  And they are easy to turn off.  Easy to change for different service with different gearing.  All weight is on driven wheels.  And the EMD FT introduced dynamic braking (a bit of a game changer) as demonstrated in 1939.  (There is some possibility of reversing valve gear to have the equivalent of compression braking in a steam engine, a little like the “jake brake” in trucks, but it quite touch and has some problems.  There is also the “water brake” scheme which I don’t think was used much anywhere.)

 

And the notion that accountants made the decisions to switch to diesels ignores the fact that most railroad presidents at the time approved such decisions and were typically long time railroaders with lots of railroading experience having often worked up the ranks.  They looked at the finances, to be sure, but not purely from an accountant perspective.  Like most long term entrenched businesses, they had a lot of entrenched inertia investment into steam and initially resisted change.  They had accepted diesel-electrics for some switching and for some passenger, but strongly resisted them for heavy freight based on their false belief that diesel-electrics weren’t up to the challenge.  Even the most extreme steam sycophants at the time were roundly proved wrong about that.   Also, the big three steam manufacturers, with inertia of their own (to their ultimate demise), kept arguing steam was still superior.  But the advantages of the diesel-electric became so obvious that the decision to change became obvious and the change over remarkably massive and quite swift.

 

Had WWII not hamstringed the steam locomotive manufacturers into being restricted to make steam only while EMD had clear sailing for diesel-electric development and production, Lima, Baldwin, and Alco might have had a chance to better compete in the diesel-electric market.

 

John Allen had the luxury of letting his interest in steam rule the day because he made all his rules.  If he had to deal with the actual realities of real railroads, the G&D might well have been fast becoming dieselized.  But I have to admit that the G&D roundhouse with its interesting garden tracks (exterior storage tracks) is a more interesting seen than a boxy diesel maintenance building.

 

Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer 

 

 


David
 

Hi All,

I thought I would throw a little item into the mix. I admit I love those steam locomotives rolling down my tracks on my layout, the sound decoders make the scene. The issue I have is that the smaller diesel switchers and such just run better. I have some Kato NW2 switchers that are the best. I modified them by putting Tsunami sound decoders in them and they are sweet! I know I will have drawn some ire from some of you but I am just comparing models, not the real locomotives. The 4 axel diesels run really well, the steamers are finicky. Also, I have seen on another persons layout where a steam locomotive lost one of its crankpin screws. Yes, we searched and found it but those suckers are really tiny on a big layout. Again, I like steam but also run diesels, usually first generation units.

As for Sierra locomotives, it is rather easy to modify the 2-6-6-2 to the 0-6-6-0 wheel arrangement. The front pilot is fairly easy to modify the only thing is getting the second matching sand dome. I had a spare from a Sierra boiler carcass I got off of Ebay years ago. I did notice that when John modified his 0-6-6-0 he screwed the pilot to the frame rather than soldering it on the backside to the frame. I'm not sure why he did that? The screw heads are rather noticeable on page 129 of "the book". My only guess is that he didn't have a powerful enough soldering iron to mate the surfaces.

I am still in the process of building my version for the Dry Gulch & Western. After lots of searching I finally found the tender I wanted to use for it (buried in my train storage area). Another Item I bought years ago on Ebay. Unfortunately I had already installed the standard Sierra tender to the locomotive and now have to change out the tender. Always something! But having fun...

David (Dry Gulch & Western)

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020, 01:56:44 PM PDT, Randy Lee Decker <randyleedecker@...> wrote:


Heated?   I thought it was finally something interesting myself.  

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:41 PM Russell Courtenay via groups.io <walruswebtech=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Guys, sorry, I’m going to have to close this topic. 

I love this discussion, it is not too far off topic, but it is getting a bit heated. 

I really think we observers see- all these facts come into play along with many other (some unknown) factors in the end of steam. 

Many love steam power, doesn’t mean Diesels are less good, we are just saddened to see steam machines cut up by the 10’s of thousands. 

Russell Courtenay
Solemnity and profundity are sublime in inequity. 


On May 13, 2020, at 2:14 PM, Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:

I’m pointing out that those “facts” leave out a LOT of “facts”.  It is also always suspicious who creates “facts” and for what purposes.  How they are presented.  What are omitted.  And what are included.

 

If that study was the do all and end all of the competitiveness of steam versus diesel, it is inconceivable there would have been the rapid abandonment of steam that occurred.

 

I have already listed a myriad of diesel-electric advantages that the chart doesn’t address at all.  The conclusion that “steam is better” based on that chart requires ignoring all those other advantages, as that chart does.

 

Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Randy Lee Decker
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:00 PM
To: GandD@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GandD] great video of up 4014 - totally unrelated to g & d (but of interest to all railfans)

 

Ohhh dear...  the facts are the facts.  the study was done.. I simply posted them.  I am not arguing with anyone here, please don't do this.  I have no interest in it.   If anyone simply read the costs for the steam and the costs for comparable Diesels (3) pulling similar loads the truth is all there in B&W.    Just simple fun facts.  I honestly thought they were well known. 

 

Randy 

 

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:45 PM Charles Kinzer <ckinzer@...> wrote:

“Nothing to debate really”?  MANY other “real differences” were the aforementioned ability to multiple unit diesel-electrics and many more aforementioned very important differences like eliminating water stops and lower weight.  Something not aforementioned is that you can pretty much turn on a diesel-electric and be on your way, but not at all true with a steam engine.  And they are easy to turn off.  Easy to change for different service with different gearing.  All weight is on driven wheels.  And the EMD FT introduced dynamic braking (a bit of a game changer) as demonstrated in 1939.  (There is some possibility of reversing valve gear to have the equivalent of compression braking in a steam engine, a little like the “jake brake” in trucks, but it quite touch and has some problems.  There is also the “water brake” scheme which I don’t think was used much anywhere.)

 

And the notion that accountants made the decisions to switch to diesels ignores the fact that most railroad presidents at the time approved such decisions and were typically long time railroaders with lots of railroading experience having often worked up the ranks.  They looked at the finances, to be sure, but not purely from an accountant perspective.  Like most long term entrenched businesses, they had a lot of entrenched inertia investment into steam and initially resisted change.  They had accepted diesel-electrics for some switching and for some passenger, but strongly resisted them for heavy freight based on their false belief that diesel-electrics weren’t up to the challenge.  Even the most extreme steam sycophants at the time were roundly proved wrong about that.   Also, the big three steam manufacturers, with inertia of their own (to their ultimate demise), kept arguing steam was still superior.  But the advantages of the diesel-electric became so obvious that the decision to change became obvious and the change over remarkably massive and quite swift.

 

Had WWII not hamstringed the steam locomotive manufacturers into being restricted to make steam only while EMD had clear sailing for diesel-electric development and production, Lima, Baldwin, and Alco might have had a chance to better compete in the diesel-electric market.

 

John Allen had the luxury of letting his interest in steam rule the day because he made all his rules.  If he had to deal with the actual realities of real railroads, the G&D might well have been fast becoming dieselized.  But I have to admit that the G&D roundhouse with its interesting garden tracks (exterior storage tracks) is a more interesting seen than a boxy diesel maintenance building.

 

Charles E. “Chuck” Kinzer