Actually diesels are cheaper to operate. They could run further without
having to stop for coal or oil, water or crew changes. Coal and water
costs (including coal and water facility costs) were eliminated. Crew
costs were reduced. Norm Metcalf, Boulder Colorado
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:57:44 -0700, Tim O'Connor timboconnor@comcast.net
[CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Without radios, triple heading was probably the easiest. But a
> locomotive on
> the point, in the middle, and at the rear -- on a steep mountain grade
> -- Now
> that must have been pretty exciting! No doubt there were special whistle
> calls
> involved too.
>
> Reduction of the number of engine crews was a HUGE reason for the
> elimination
> of steam power. Diesels actually cost more to buy and operate but they
> allowed
> railroads to lay off lots of crews and shop workers and run fewer,
> longer trains
> and that more than made up for the higher ownership costs. Thanks to
> union rules
> based on mileage there was no incentive to run trains any faster.
> Average freight
> train speed today is only 1 or 2 mph faster than it was 100 years ago.
>
> Tim O'Connor
>
>
>> Just slightly off topic, but I wonder, how hard was it to MU steam
>> engines? As "easy" as today, or more demanding?
>>
>> Bill Scott
>
>
>
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
|