On Mar 22, 2007, at 5:48 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

The pre-eminence of the Pennsy, both its operating and mechanical
departments, peaked early in the 20th century and rapidly declined
thereafter owing to arrogance and bad management, with the
post-World-War-I squandering of capital on its ill-conceived
electrification project hastening its eventual demise.

Oh that's just silly. The SP had "ill-conceived elecrification"
projects, and built large new passenger terminals long after the
decline in passenger traffic was well under way. I agree the PRR
was arrogant, but so were most other railroads -- pride and tunnel
vision were widespread traits of railroad management.

Come now, Tim, statements aren't silly just because you don't happen to agree with them. Numerous RRs considered electrification, especially on mountainous districts with a lot of tunnels, and most of them ran the numbers and decided against it (though it apparently worked well enough for the GN and MILW in terrain whose difficulty the Pennsy's management couldn't even imagine). But only the PRR set out to electrify an entire (and very large) railroad, stuck with it until they had electrified about half of their main lines, and gave up only when the ruinous expense and doubtful benefits became too obvious to ignore. I have no argument with your statement that "pride and tunnel vision were widespread traits of railroad management," but PRR management carried those traits to extremes which were rendered especially obvious by the railroad's sheer size. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Back to freight cars. Consider the F30A flat cars as an example of PRR's perversity in freight car design. Granted, they were an engineering innovation in their use of one piece cast steel underframes, but the castings were excessively complicated, costy, and over-designed. Though adopted as an AAR "recommended practice" design (there being, at the time, no other 70 ton flats with cast steel underframes), no other RRs got them, with the single exception of 50 cars purchased by the LV in 1950. By contrast, when GSC developed much simpler and less costly castings for 70 ton flat cars, other RRs bought them by the hundreds. Though the Pennsy claimed to be leaders in engineering, their followers were almost non-existent; the mechanical officers of most other RRs considered the PRR people to be both arrogant and unrealistic and were more than happy to see them march off to the beat of their own drum while the rest of the industry went in other directions.

Richard Hendrickson

But only the PRR set out to
electrify an entire (and very large) railroad, stuck with it until they
had electrified about half of their main lines, and gave up only when
the ruinous expense and doubtful benefits became too obvious to ignore.

Unfortunately it's not on topic, but I have always been curious why
electrification was never very successful on this continent, where it has
had enormous success elsewhere.

Back to freight cars. <snip> Though the Pennsy claimed to be leaders in
engineering, their followers were almost non-existent;

Well, I do think in many ways they did do things ahead of their time. If
nothing else, it's great for the modeler. :)

Frank Valoczy

Richard Hendrickson wrote

But only the PRR set out to electrify an entire (and very large)
railroad, stuck with it until they had electrified about half of
their main lines

Say what? Less than 500 miles of electrified mainline is 1/2 of their
mainlines? And nearly ALL of that electrification remains in place
today, and has been recently greatly expanded (to Boston). Meanwhile
your examples of GN, MILW are long gone, while the SP abandoned all
of its extensive electrification (exceeding the PRR's mileage by a
good margin) long ago. Nope, sorry, I ain't buying it. PRR was a
victim of geography and massive shifts in the manufacturing economy,
just as western railroads were saved by it. They all suffered from
poor public policy and disinvestment.

Tim O'Connor

Umm.... before Ted jumps on this one Tim let's just point out that the electrification north of NYC that was extended to Boston actually belonged to the New Haven, not the PRR

The PRR had more FREIGHT CARS than the New Haven, but the New Haven did have some unique cars, including a 50' FLAT CAR, a very nice kit of which is currently available from Speedwitch. Has anybody else built one?

Bill Schneider - desperately trying to get back on track

On Mar 22, 2007, at 11:15 PM, Richard Hendrickson wrote:

But only the PRR set out to
electrify an entire (and very large) railroad, stuck with it until they
had electrified about half of their main lines, and gave up only when
the ruinous expense and doubtful benefits became too obvious to ignore.

OK, I know that it still hurts to know that the PRR carried 35% MORE fresh fruits and veggies than Richard's beloved AT&SF circa 1950, but it is time to integrate some FACTS into this part of the discussion.<VBG>

Electrification was one of the bright points in what was (as Richard has pointed out) an otherwise often mediocre post-1920s mechanical department. When the PRR expanded its electrification to the freight lines and Harrisburg in 1938, it resulted in incredible increases in efficiency when compared to steam. This was, of course, because electrics did not require stops for coal and water, and were much faster to service. This was particularly true for the freight lines, where steam era freight cars could be handled without fuel/water stops between Enola, Potomac (Virginia), Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York (New Jersey). The tonnage miles and passengers carried on the PRR during WWII speak to that. It is particularly impressive in light of the fact that PRR engineers did their best to mess it up by using steam locomotive wheel arrangements for the early electrics (O1, P5, L6). At the time, the cost of the infrastructure was more than aptly compensated by the efficiencies gained (and the fact that the taxpayer paid for much of it as part of recovery from the Depression).

The death of the expansion of electrification was the diesel, which eliminated the need for the costly infrastructure while maintaining the advantages. However, I will point out that the PRRs electrified regions continued to compete favorably with the diesel in costs when handling freight cars throughout the steam era (and well into the diesel era - the reasons for the cessation of freight haulage on the former PRR electrified tracks are many, generally political and not economic and waaaay out of scope for this list). When cost analyses were performed, it was judged less costly to buy new electrics than to dieselize the electrified zone, even though the electric locomotives were more expensive on a per capita basis. Thus the only thing that stymied expansion was the cost of NEW infrastructure, not the cost of maintaining the old.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

I know this is straying from STMFC topic, but don't know what list electrification belongs on, so I'll try to make it brief.

The primary reason that electrification economics didn't work in the U. S. is traffic density. Look at the train frequency elsewhere in the world whre there is a lot of electrification and you'll see many lines that far exceed anything in the U.S. Also those lines have to fit freight into dense passenger traffic, which means the acceleration characteristics of electrics are vital. Also the U.s. had more efficient diesle motive power (economic efficiency that is, not technical excellence).

It was not a management omission or failure that U.S. railroads didn't electrify. Many looked at it but the numbers didn't comopute to justify the investment. I could tell you about one such study that I worked on, but the date would send me to jail and the jailer seems to be looking hard for victims today. Anyone want to start a U.S. electrification history group ?


Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478

Why did the UP insist on using Cor-Ten steel in its freight
cars to save a few hundred pounds of steel

Since CorTen is used for corrosion resistance, I suspect the UP was more
interested in that factor than weight savings. If a lighter sheet of steel
could be made to last longer, that might provide an extra incentive, but it
would be secondary.

The primary reason that electrification economics didn't
work in the U. S. is traffic density.

Be careful of buying into the stories the railroad publicity people put out.
On the big Milwaukee group we discuss the economics of electrification quite
a bit. There are numbers available there that show just how much more it
cost the Milwaukee when they went to diesels. Technology was no protection
against greedy, short-sighted management.

Dan Stinson
Helena, Montana

Mal,

There is such a group already;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shock-jocks/

Although its about as active a RR electrification in America.

regards,

Andy Miller

Malcolm,

Thank you for the brief explanation. It made plenty of sense.

Anyone want to start a U.S. electrification
history group ?

I would definitely be interested in such a group!

Frank Valoczy