the mountain routes when Steam was in use required 1-2 locomotives the when Diesel electrics replaced
them the same size train required 4-6. With current engines they need 2-4. Tech improves with time.
Coal fired steam loco's even burning "clean" coal are incredibly dirty. The coal smoke and clinkers are
also just a tad radioactive.
At 03:48 PM 2/13/04, you wrote:
Yes, Bill, they did. But they also bought certain critical parts which became unavailable as they were not profitable to make in smaller quanities. And cost way too much for them to set up production of their own.
The 8:1 figure came from N&W for mountain routes. Apparently they just do not run a long a train anymore.
--
Bill Owens wrote:
Norfork & Western did not agree with your premise. They only dropped steamwhen
they could not get critical parts any longer. It took 8 diesel locomotivesto to
haul the load of one of their steam engines. It is another case of oncethe
infrastructure is gone it is insanely expensive to replace it. Which weare
going to probably eventually find out is the case with film.
The N&W built their own steam locomotives in the Roanoke, VA shops, including the best looking and most efficient steam locos ever built, the J-series. AFAIK, they still build their own coal hoppers, again, in the Roanoke shops. Also, I believe the 8:1 ratio is a bit optimistic. The most diesel electrics I ever saw hooked to a long string of coal hoppers was 5, which could be handled by one 2-8-8-2 steamer. I imagine the steamers were much more labor intensive to maintain. Especially considering the number of water towers that had to be maintained
see noEnvironmentally? That is a question that never has been explored to my knowledge. It was not a factor to be considered back then. But really I
greater problem there with steam than with diesel, maybe less.
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan
