Was steam dead by 1956?

Ted: No argument regarding diesel economics - - - they are entirely in favor of diesels. I was just reminding that steam locomotives were pretty powerful in their own right. And that's why they hung around for some 125 years!

       Your example of steam replacement brings up an interesting point. If diesels are so superior from a non-economic, pure performance point of view, how come the number of locomotives remained constant? Steam locomotives were replaced at about a 1:1 ratio. If diesel performance was so superior, one might think fewer diesels would have replaced a greater number of steam locomotives!

The rule of thumb I always heard was that a steam locomotive spent 2 out of 3 hours in the shop, while a diesel locomotive spent 1 out of 3 hours in the shop.

Rusty

I'm sure you've heard this one... It was easy to find a steam  engine problem  and could be impossible to fix.

Diesel.  Sometimes hard to find the problem but usually an easy fix.

I think the answer to the question in the last sentence of your post would vary somewhat, depending on the operating conditions of a particular railroad--and due to the vastly different horsepower/tractive effort profiles that exist between steam and diesel locomotives.

Jeff C

Jeff - Agreed. The needs of a Rio Grande as regards tractive effort and horsepower would be substaintially different then, say, an M&StL. But taking the industry as a whole, and the work performed by the industry, the steam vs. diesel replacement ratio was about 1:1. Again, if diesel performance (not economics, mind you) was so superior, one would think fewer diesels would be required to replace the "poorer performing" steam locomotive fleet!

Go back to Paul Kieffer's 1948 NYCS comparison between the Niagara 4-8-4 S1a class and the EMD E7.  In this case, the steamer was used in it's very best case scenario, at least in a performance point of view.  The Diesel power won out here by a very tiny margin.  But remember.. this is 1948. Two years later the whole field has turned up side down.  Steam operating costs are climbing in every category of comparison. The EMD locomotive is now the superior E8, and NYCS Diesel handling, operation, and maintenance has improved in dramatic fashion.  Passenger service, where steam might be closest in competitive performance  (but certainly not in public approval!) is being scuttled as fast as legally possible.  Nope..steam is a cooked goose.  Your best bet now, if you just can't live without steam....go get a "steamy Diesel"  like the Alco RS1 !  

Again, focusing on performance in isolation, it should be recalled that the steam fleet was composed predominately of rather elderly locomotives, built 30 and 40 years earlier. These locomotives were being replaced with state of the art, latest design, presumably top of the line productivity diesel locomotives. Yet, the replacement ratio was 1:1!

How is a fireless engine not considered a "steam locomotive??" It's a locomotive that runs on steam.

The only difference is a steam locomotive boils it's own water while a fireless cooker has the water boiled somewhere else.

Rusty

 The availability of diesel-electric locos is phenominal.   Wyhog's observation is so true! Actually the productivity of modern machines is astounding. We are now looking at 200,000 mile autos. Modern jet planes haul anywhere from 2-5 passenger payloads per day, with an incredible degree of safety. This is the product of incremental engineering improvements built on previous successes. Man is an incredible animal!  I recall a comedian observing "If porpoises are so smart, where are the porpoise hotels, the porpoise automobiles!"

       But, why did my darn 2 year old Chinese made dish washer clunk out??!! Maybe the Chinese farmed the work out to poorly paid porpoises!

I would argue that regardless of where a locomotive gets its steam, if steam is used to operate the locomotive, it is a steam locomotive.

I don't think it was dead, but it certainly was on life support!!

To be correctly accurate, a "fireless cooker" does not get filled with steam fron an outside source. The "fireless cooker" locomotives are filled with extremely hot water from an outside boiler. Thus, when the throttle is opened the pressure is relieved enough so the that the very hot water allows saturated steam to be released and powers the pistons. 

Here is some interesting summary from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieselisation

United States[edit]

This list is a sample of some of the more prominent railroad companies' diesel traction conversions.

• Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad - first diesel 1934;^[11] dieselisation completed in 1960 (but see Colorado & Southern, below).^[12]
• Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad - official dieselization date was September 16, 1953.^[13]
• Colorado and Southern Railway - dieselization completed in 1962.^[12]
• Crab Orchard and Egyptian Railway - Steam-using tourist line that added regular revenue freight service in 1977, dieselized 1986.^[14] Recognized by the AAR as the last US railroad of any kind to use steam locomotives in regular revenue service.^{[citation needed]}
• Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad (narrow gauge lines)^{[lease_clarify" title="Wikipedialease clarify">clarification needed]}- ended revenue operation in 1968, never dieselising.^{[citation needed]}
• Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway - first diesel 1937;^[15] dieselisation completed in May 1949 ^[16][17]
• Great Northern Railway - dieselisation completed in 1957.
• Great Western Railway - steam used at least to 1965, possibly 1967.^{[citation needed]}
• Great Western Sugar Company - last steam operation in 1983. Among the last industrial steam users in the US.^{[citation needed]}
• Illinois Central Railroad - dieselisation completed in 1959.^{[citation needed]}
• Milwaukee Road - last new steam 1944; dieselisation completed in 1957.
• Monon Railroad - dieselisation completed in 1949.
• New York Central Railroad - full-scale dieselization began in the late 1940s, final run of steam in regular service was in 1957.^[18]
• Pennsylvania Railroad - last steam in regular operations was in 1957.^[19]
• Norfolk and Western Railway - last new steam 1953, last US Class 1 railroad to dieselize, dieselization completed in May 1960.^{[citation needed]}
• Southern Pacific Railroad - dieselisation completed in 1958.^{[citation needed]}
• Southern Railway - dieselisation completed in 1953.^{[citation needed]}
• Union Pacific Railroad - First diesel in 1934; last new steam in 1944;^[20] last passenger steam run 1958; dieselisation completed in 1959, however steam locomotive UP 844 was never retired, and UP 3985reentered excursion service in 1981.^{[citation needed]}
• Western Pacific Railroad - dieselisation completed in 1953 (last steam operated on subsidiary Tidewater Southern).^{[citation needed]}

I saw a few steamers still operating in Australia in 1969. 

I just came across this thread.  I had the books mentioned in the originating post.  How many of the routes shown on the covers are still around under those flag?  Very few.

Thanks for the pics and info. It's interesting to see how long steam lasted in some places.(like China f'instance) The British ran their last mainline steam in 1968, pretty much 10-15 years after they officially said steam was on the way out.

Well, they had mad coal deposits in the North...

As for China, they had ridiculous coal desposits. They also had manpower surplus issues that really required as much labor-intensive locomotives as possible, as well as zero environmental Lobbying (or lobbying of any kind). So, steam was a great fit for them. In fact, they're still running steam today on short lines and narrow gauge lines in China.

Germany ran steam into the 1970s in the West, and 1980s in the East.

Great discussion everybody!

If diesel performance was so superior, one might think fewer diesels would have replaced a greater number of steam locomotives!

Mark

Well, that depends how you consider a single unit.  Most F units and FAs were sold in 3 or four unit sets to replace steam locomotives on a more or less like for like basis.  By the mid 1950s the flexibility of road switchers had largely replaced that mentality and Fs and Geeps were mixed and matched to meet evolving needs.

But are steam locomotives truly single unit locomotives?  I can't think of any superpower tank locomotives.  So they are at least two units locomotives, but the units can not be split an still function.  An articulated might be thought of as a three unit locomotive with two engines under the boiler plus the tender.  Again, there is no flexibility to split them and meet multiple needs.

A non-articulated superpower locomotive would have 7 or  8 axles under the locomotive and 6 to 8 under the tender for 13 to 16 axles total.  Of course F units or Geeps have 4 axles per unit so that makes for 12 to 16 axles.  That puts first generation diesels on an even footing on a total axle/total weight basis compared to steam.  But the weight of the Geeps or F units is 100% on the driving axles so they have a huge low speed advantage that often eliminated helpers where steam had needed them.

Superpower Articulateds would have 9 to 12 axles under the locomotive and 6 or 7 under the tender for 15 to 19 axles.  Sixteen axles worth of GP9 power could do quite nicely against that on a pound per pound or per axle basis.

A true single unit to single unit, pound to pound, axle to axle comparison between steam and diesel might require comparing an 0-8-0T to a GP9.  That certainly would not look good for steam. And that is a first generation diesel.  Today's six axle road diesels really do offer the performance of a superpower articulated for less than half of the weight and number of axles.

The "tipping point" for the decision to go all diesel may have been reached several years before 1954. There was a coal miner's strike in 1949, I believe, that made the reliability of coal shipments to the railroads questionable, at any price. This John L. Lewis led strike may have had unintended consequences and forced RR execs to not risk being unable to provide transportation service, and a number probably decided to completely dieselize at that time. (There were thoughts that some RR's that had ready access to coal supplies, like L&N, B&O, and others might keep a steam fleet of some kind.) Having said that, there is no question re the superior performance and economics of the diesel, especially if you include the "support facilities" required for steam operation.

I have a very interesting book in my library titled "American Steam Finale 1954-1970" by Lloyd Stagner. It provides info re locations and types of engines operated by RR at the very end of steam. In the east, once PRR and NYC dieselized, we knew that the game was over.....

One big advantage of the diesel-electric is that it has a different power characteristic than a steamer does. A diesel can provide almost full horsepower at stall speed, due to the characteristics of the DC (and now AC) traction motor. A steamer is hobbled by the constant torque (turning moment) provided by a certain diameter set of cylinders, a certain driving wheel size, and a certain stroke. (It is not quite a constant torque throughout its speed range because the valve gear "cuts off" the steam at higher speeds to take advantage of the potential expansion properties of the steam, and so the boiler does not run out of steam to supply the cylinders.) That power characteristic makes the diesel far superior in low speed service and also mountain work, where speeds are lower. Steam in passenger service was more successful generally, since that weakness in the steam locomotive was not exposed by the application. As for efficiency, the "external combustion" process used by a steam locomotive is extremely  wasteful, where the temp. of water is increased from ambient temp. using a firebox, increased to about 650 degr using a superheater, used for ONE HALF of one complete piston stroke, and then exhausted out the stack still slightly superheated. In an internal combustion diesel, combustion is a closed process, and even the hot exhaust gas is used to spin a roots blower or a turbocharger to provide extra air to increase the peak firing pressure. I wish it were different, but that is the way it is........

In an internal combustion diesel, combustion is a closed process, and even the hot exhaust gas is used to spin a roots blower or a turbocharger to provide extra air

Turbochargers as used on Alco and GE prime movers take their power from exhaust gasses.

Roots blowers are gear driven and receive their power from the engine.  Like any other gear driven accessory they reduce the net horsepower available at the output shaft.

EMD turbochargers fron the GP20 and SD24 to the SD70 and SD80 are gear driven at low speed through an overrunning clutch.  At high output the exhaust gases begin to drive the turbo at higher speed than the gear train.

For me, 3 or 4 locomotives coupled together, with couplers, is just that, 3 to 4 locomotives coupled together. And that combination was needed to duplicate steam performance in the flatlands. If we coupled 3 to 4 steam locomotives together, would that be a single locomotive?     Nahhh.....   But we are getting into the area of angels dancing on heads of pins.

       Anyway, I will quote George L. Ernstrom, Chief Mechanical Officer of the Northern Pacific Ry after observing test runs of the EMD FT demonstrators in 1939, on the NP:  "The steam locomotive is finished". That's probably as good a date marking steam's ultimate demise as can be determined.

For me, 3 or 4 locomotives coupled together, with couplers, is just that, 3 to 4 locomotives coupled together. And that combination was needed to duplicate steam performance in the flatlands. If we coupled 3 to 4 steam locomotives together, would that be a single locomotive?     Nahhh.....   But we are getting into the area of angels dancing on heads of pins.

Which is exactly why some electrics and FTs came with drawbars and not couplers.  There were very expensive labor angels dancing on the heads of those contractual pins. 

Vary adroit use of the George Ernstrom quote on the GM 103 vs. Z-6 comparison.  That is an excellent example why David Morgan referred to the FT as "the Diesel that Did it."

I would still rather watch a steamer go by than any diesel!  

But the change over has been explained very well by some of the above posters.

Steam still has a very valid place in modern railroading....yup!  Dining car chefs can make really great veggies on a steam table, Huzzah!  

Which is exactly why some electrics and FTs came with drawbars and not couplers.  There were very expensive labor angels dancing on the heads of those contractual pins.  

 Ted's quite funny comment references the brotherhoods' attempt to mandate a crew for each unit in an ABBA diesel. Good gosh, unions!

Ted,

In my post I should have clarified my remarks re the EMD roots blower. The blower was gear driven through the use of an "overrunning clutch" up to Notch 6, After N6, the exhaust gas stream was strong enough to drive the blower in N7 and N8. The principal conclusion though is that all diesel engine builders used the energy in the exhaust gasses to make the engine perform better, with regard to both HP and also fuel consumption. Each engine builder used to provide a curve to the railroads that had SFC (specific fuel consumption) in Lb./brake HP for each throttle notch. The EMD curve got decidedly better in N7 and N8 as a result of the higher efficiency using exhaust gas flow.

The cost of maintaining this overrunning clutch was very high for those railroads that wished to maintain it themselves. I recall that, for a proposal for Pakistan Railways, the parts cost for this tooling was so high that the RR could have purchased another complete locomotive! In the US, EMD used to offer this as an exchange item, so the US RR's had it better.....

Berkshire President wrote earlier:

Rather than bemoan what is gone, we can be thankful for what is still here.....and that there are still people around who know how to operate, repair, and maintain them.  Some are even on this Forum......

I agree!   And we can keep these engines running into the future by riding the excursion trains and becoming members of the groups that own and maintain these steam engines.

Thanks to all who provided a great deal of historical information to the question originally posed.  The thread has been very educational for this rookie.

It's a minimal difference, at best...but the Northwestern Steel & Wire 0-8-0s are generally considered the last non-tourist steam in the US.

This begs the question though...anyone know offhand if any other fireless cookers survived in operation past 1980 other than the one at Elizabethton?

As for what was the worst in American Diesel power, this needs it's own thread...which I'll fire up right now.