Very true, in the mid-1950’s there were a number of important technological
advancements for the steam engine that made it a better choice than diesel.
High tensile steel, better insulation, roller bearings synthetic lubrication
and huge advancements in front end technology (steam nozzle and petticoat).
It has been suggested that if the Canadian railways waited about 5 years
they might not have moved to diesel. There were all sorts of wonderful
improvements to the engine happening all over the world.
Jeff Pinchbeck
It has been suggested by railfans and steam buffs, yes ... but not by many
serious, unbiased railroaders I've ever known who had extensive experience
with both steam and diesel. I won't rehash the arguments yet again.
Nothing the pro-steam crowd has presented to date has ever given those of us
(or perhaps most correctly, most of us) who spent time in the industry and
took any sort of interest in the question any reason to think that
dieselization was a mistake so far as at least North America is concerned.
Dieselization would have occurred simply because the ongoing improvements to
electronics allowed diesels to go places and do things which a traditionally
designed steam engine simply could not be set up to do. Remember that when
we talk about steam engines, for the purpose of this discussion we are
talking about locomotives which looked and functioned pretty much as the
traditional idea of a steam locomotive. If we had steam powered locomotives
today, they wouldn't look anything like the traditional steamers.
Joe Smuin
1. - "Joey, the secret to telling a good railway story is to always try to
stick just as close to the facts as possible." --- (the late) Cliff
Inkster; CPR Engineman, raconteur and philosopher.
2. - The secret to contacting Joe by email is to be sure to insert "Joe" or
"Smuin" into the main text portion of any message you send to him, and thus
your message should percolate through his spam filters.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
