A question as old as the 40's
- Thread starter Steamguy
- Start date
scorpions_N&W
Member
Pretty much impossible to answer. All of them were built to different specs generated by the railroads that ordered them and all had differing "missions" and were built to operate in different geographic areas. If you ask my favorite I'd say the SP GS series, but the Santa Fe 3750 series should be on the list as well their 2900 series (they were massive!) along with some of the others mentioned here. "Your favorite Northern" would be a better thread title 
'cause without common design criteria there's really no way to judge them against one another. We'll all just be arguing for our personal favorite. Just my $.02
'cause without common design criteria there's really no way to judge them against one another. We'll all just be arguing for our personal favorite. Just my $.02
PaulB
Member
I guess there would be two elements to that.
First is range. Diesels can run a long way with one tank of fuel. Steam locos use up their water supply fairly quickly unless they have a huge tender of can pick up water along the line (eg: NYC had water scoops).
Second is down time for maintenance. This was the real killer for most steam engines. Friction bears, manual lubrication, time to build up steam or cool down for cleaning out the firebox after dropping the ashes, etc. Also steam loco maintence was man power intenstive, thus expensive. The most developed steam locos had roller bearings all over the place, as the N&W fans pointed out in regard to the J class. Such advanced locos had mechanical lubricators and other innovations to extend time between maintenance. The J class was particularly 'avaliable' by steam loco standards, being able to run a long time between overhauls. Thus a handful of locos (I think there were 15 of them) were able to handle most of the N&W's passenger trains.
Diesels are just so much more efficent than steam locos. Far fewer diesels can do the same job as a hoard of steam locos. A much, much smaller work force is needed to keep that diesel roster running. That means diesels are considerably cheaper than steam locos.
There are other advantages to diesels, such as lots of power for low wear on trackwork. Steam engines tended to hammer track due to the stroke and counter weight motion. So less track maintenance with diesels also saves money. There were very real reasons why most roads couldn't get rid of their steam power quickly enough.
The N&W was a notable exception, managment not seeing the need for diesels until the late 1950's. This was partly due to the N&W having plenty of coal for fuel avaliable, having their own in house steam engine shops, and owning a fleet of very advanced steam locos which rivaled diesels in their efficency. If it had not been for a change of managment the N&W might have steamed on into the 1970's without any diesels
.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
There was another elemental reason for the late dieselization too. One of N&W major shippers was the coal industry. As I understand it there was an underlying feeling of not wanting to "bite the hand that feeds you" going on.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
