RE: (erielack) Steam Commuter Operation

["Tupaczewski, Paul R (Paul)" <paultup_@_lucent.com>]

Good topic, Ed!


> Here's one of those "what ifs" propositions.  I realize that 
> Lackawanna management converted steam commuter trains over 
> to diesels because of the coal strike.  But what if they 
> didn't?  Even 
> with the extra cost of maintenance on the steam locomotives, I 
> wonder how much it cost the company to operate these machines. 
> Since the Boonton Line Grades were so easy, there could not have 
> been a great expense for coal and I suspect that eastbound trains 
> could have almost made it from Dover to Hoboken with very little 
> use of steam.

I don't know about "very little use of steam." The grades between Lincoln Park and Dover were on the stiff side. East of there was fairly relaxed, but the DL&W had to cross the same set of mountains that the NYS&W did (and the Suskie has stiff grades!)



> I'm not a steam engine specialist but I just suspect 
> these old Pacifics operated a lot more cheaply than the purchase 
> of new diesels and the support needed to keep them going.  
> However the Trainmasters were multi-purpose, running freights 
> when not in the passenger pool, something the Pacifics couldn't do.

Another important factor with diesels is their exceptional "uptime." Steam locomotives couldn't be run 24 hours a day, but diesels surely could. This allowed the DL&W to make more off their investment in diesels than they could with steam. (of course, the latter statement is pure conjecture - but it makes sense)


 
> Another question about the Lackawanna steam operation.  Why 
> didn't they burn culm or some other mixture of anthracite to cut 
> down on cinders.  The engines were made to do that.  I believe that 
> CNJ used that kind of a mix right up until the end with the 
> excursions or 774.  

To burn the smaller grades of coal, you needed a BIG WIDE firebox (which, admittedly, the Pacifics and 4-4-0s had). I'm not sure if the culm was just more ungainly to handle (finer grade)?

 
> If Hurricane Diane had occurred in 1952, I suspect the Pacifics 
> might have run a lot longer.  --Just another thought.

Hurricane Diane occurred in 1955, so I doubt it had anything to do with dieselization. I do think that the big $$$ savings that the various builders' reps were showing the Lackawanna appealed to the bean counters.

Good topic, though. As I'm only a youngin', being born in the later EL years, I'm making assumptions above. I know there are folks here who can answer this much more authoritatively...

	- Paul

------------------------------