Economics of replacing steam
- From: "W. A. (Dale) Wilson" <dale.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:18:28 -0500
On 8-Feb-09, at 1:14 PM, aeyb701 wrote:
I agree-maintenance-yes-scores of electricians, fitters, smiths,
mechanics, machinists at every roundhouse. Parts could not be
ordered from a warehouse like say from GMD in the case of first gen
diesels, they had to be made in house, such is my understanding
anyway. Very labour intensive for sure-whole Canadian towns-Truro,
Moncton, Belleville (Ok I can't think of a CP town yet) had the loco
service industry as a pillar of existence a hundred years ago.
I wonder if fuel was another reason, perhaps not dollar-per-pound
but i read long ago that steam engines were about 3% efficient on
average-the other 97% of fuel energy went up the stack or radiated
out the sides as heat or in overcoming friction in the loco itself.
Diesels while not as efficient as say electric catenary pickup were
on the order of a tenfold increase in efficiency.
If anyone cares to argue I don't mind, feel free.
Can't argue with your statements. While I know little of day to day
operations under steam on CP and CN in northern Ontario, I can speak
with some assurance of the Algoma Central experience when the chance
came to dieselize, which came in the early 1950s.
The fueling situation comes to mind. There were six coaling facilities
along the 296 mile main line and 26 mile branch. Coal had to be
brought in either at the railway's own docks in the Sault or
Michipicoten and transported, or in the case of Franz, Oba and Hearst,
contracted for with CP or CN at a shared facility - corrections on
this welcome, by the way. Hearst for sure would have been an NTR, then
CGR, then CNR facility, but I don't know the situation in the other
two crossing points.
The coal towers would have to be restocked and maintained if the
railway was to remain operational, and that took manpower, OCS coal
and train crew time.
There were 15 water tanks in operation in 1951, some reflecting the
need for watering of 'short turn' trains, such trains being a practice
less necessary with the diesels. The maintaining of water tanks, their
pumps and stoves required a lot of regular manpower, again to keep the
railway operating reliably.
Shop time for the diesels was minimal in comparison to steam. Although
I understand some railways took tremendous advantage of this, in the
beginning of the diesel era the ACR didn't seem to.
Due to the railway's small size, complete dieselization was completed
quickly so savings were made early on. Despite the steam 'culture'
that has been championed by so many, the majority of employees in both
the running trades and shops [and yes, there would soon be fewer of
them!] preferred the new machinery.
Dale Wilson <dale.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Nickel Belt Rails, Box 483, Station "B", Sudbury, ON, P3E 4P6
Other related posts:
- » Economics of replacing steam - W. A. (Dale) Wilson
