Re: [cpsig] Economics of replacing steam
- From: "Roger T." <rogertra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 21:47:21 -0800
When you compare them on equal footing it is a lot more difficult. When
they
compared 1940's era steam with 1950's era diesels the diesels often didn't
come out so well. This is one reason many railroads ran steam as long as
they did, they finally had no choice but to dieselize when parts became
harder and harder to get. When they dieselized in China and India it was
more on the basis of politics than economics. Neither wanted to be seen as
a
"backward" country.
The same could be and was argued when BR decided to invest heavily in steam
in the 1960s.
They scrapped many steam loco, with a planed life of 30 years, that were ten
years and as young as five years old. Why? Because steam was "old
fashioned" and didn't fit into the new "Modern Image" marketing of British
Railways. In the rush to dieselise, millions of pound were spent in
purchasing untried, unproven and unreliable diesels and let's not mention
the hundreds of million pounds spend on scrapping 999 ten to 15 year old
"Standard Class" let alone the hundreds of post 1947 steam locos of the Big
Four that were also built by British Railways. All gone by mid 1968.
Cheers.
Roger T.
See the GER at: -
http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/
Other related posts:
