Message Areas - "Steam in the USA"

Train-Sim.Com Message Areas

"Steam in the USA"

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Previous Topic | Next Topic Conferences General (Protected) Original message
TrainFreak (68 posts)
Sep-02-01, 06:36 AM (EST) "Steam in the USA" When was the last steam engines retired from regular service in the USA, and what company(ies) kept their steamers 'till the end? Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Table of Contents

Subject Author Message Date ID RE: Steam in the USA michigandon Sep-02-01 1 RE: Steam in the USA milwaukeefan Sep-02-01 2 RE: Steam in the USA michigandon Sep-02-01 3 RE: Steam in the USA johninchicago Sep-02-01 4 RE: Steam in the USA Widowmaker2k Sep-02-01 5 RE: Steam in the USA milwaukeefan Sep-02-01 6 RE: Steam in the USA TrainFreak Sep-04-01 7 RE: Steam in the USA sniper297 Sep-04-01 8 RE: Steam in the USA Widowmaker2k Sep-04-01 9 RE: Steam in the USA easagrippa Sep-04-01 10 RE: Steam in the USA sniper297 Sep-04-01 11 RE: Steam in the USA Widowmaker2k Sep-05-01 12 RE: Steam in the USA michigandon Sep-05-01 13

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Messages in this topic
michigandon (86 posts)
Sep-02-01, 07:24 AM (EST) 1. "RE: Steam in the USA" That is somewhat of a debateable question. As far as regular service on the "big" railroads is concerend, the Grand Trunk, Illinois Central, and Norfolk and Western ran steam up until 1960. Many shortlines continued to operate steam well into the early to mid '60s (the Lake Superior and Ishpeming in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is one example that I know of offhand). Many of the big RR companies also kept an engine or two on the roster for excusion service long after steam was retired in regular service (i.e. RDG, CB&Q, UP, etc). The Rio Grande narrow guage continued on as it was well into the late '60s simply because there was enough traffic to justify keeping the line in operation, yet NOT enough to justify the cost of dieselizing the line and/or converting it over to standard guage.
One could ramble on about this topic forever I guess...................... Don Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
milwaukeefan (258 posts)
Sep-02-01, 10:03 AM (EST) 2. "RE: Steam in the USA" There was even a steel mill in Indiana near Chicago that used oil burner 0-8-0s till 1979! but that was a very long time, generally mainline steam was gone on most railroads by 1957, but a couple held out a little longer. And every railroad that kept a steam angine for excursion lost it EXCEPT for UP, mainly because of mergers. Reading had to amny problems with bankrupcy to care about keeping one 4-8-4 Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
michigandon (86 posts)
Sep-02-01, 10:11 AM (EST) 3. "RE: Steam in the USA" Ah yes, Union Steel and Wire! Forgot all about that place. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
johninchicago (59 posts)
Sep-02-01, 12:24 PM (EST) 4. "RE: Steam in the USA" LAST EDITED ON Sep-02-01 AT 12:27 PM (EST)As Don says, an exact date is hard to come by, largely because steam was phased out gradually as Diesels were phased in, and the demise of steam occured unceremoniously. I do know that Norfolk and Western ran mainline steam operations into 1958, and perhaps beyond. As a matter of fact, there is a book titled: "The Last Steam Railroad in America" by Thomas H. Garver, published by Abradale Press. Incidentally, the book features photos by O. Winston Link,considered one of America's formost steam photographers, including some of his very rare color photos. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Widowmaker2k (32 posts)
Sep-02-01, 02:43 PM (EST) 5. "RE: Steam in the USA" The last operation of a large steam engine on a class 1 railway was, I believe, in January of 1985. It was on the C&O. They ran a 4-8-4 locomotive to test out the feasibility of returning steam locomotives to main line service. The 4-8-4 hauled several 3,500 ton coal trains on chessies line between Huntington and Hinton, West Virginia. It was after these tests that they drew up plans for there ACE 3000 steam locomotive. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
milwaukeefan (258 posts)
Sep-02-01, 04:50 PM (EST) 6. "RE: Steam in the USA" There have been many occasions where steam has taken a random frieght train like that- UP uses its steam on freight occasionally- but I dont think that owuld count. Its just testing, plus its not on the operating roster. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
TrainFreak (68 posts)
Sep-04-01, 01:55 AM (EST) 7. "RE: Steam in the USA" They seriously wanted to buy NEW steam locomotives as late as 1985?? Maybe China and the US isn't so very different after all... LoL Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
sniper297 (358 posts)
Sep-04-01, 07:04 PM (EST) 8. "RE: Steam in the USA" Some of that may have to do with the energy crunch, USA constantly being held up by foriegn oil cartels. Not enough of our own oil in texas, oklahoma or alaska, but large untapped coal mines everywhere. Diesels are cheaper to maintain, don't need to pull a car full of water and fuel behind them, and can be multiple unit controlled by a single engineer. But they can't be converted to burn coal in a pinch. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Widowmaker2k (32 posts)
Sep-04-01, 10:53 PM (EST) 9. "RE: Steam in the USA" Modern steam locomotives would employ 3 new technologys. 1, a condenser. A condensing tender isn't a new idea. It's been employed in South Africa for 48 years. This saves 90 percent of water used. 2, Computers. A modern steam locomotive would be completely computer controlled. Operating would be very similar to operating a diesel locomotive, as the computer would control all the devices such as reuglator, cut-off, blowers, ect. This would undoubtably boost efficiancy by quite a bit. This would also alow multi unit control. 3, A new technology, the coal is converted to a mixture of water and producer gas before being burnt, by introducing steam into the firebed. The reaction takes place at a modest temperature; consequently clinker does not form. There are 2 advantages. First, the coal is consumed more thoroughly and so the process is more efficiant. Secondly, since air for combustion is introduced above the firebed, unpleasant emissions in the form of unburnt coal are virtually eliminated, thereby making steam traction acceptable to people who object to black smoke. (pg 447, Trains of the World, Brian Hollingsworth.)Also, now adays, a dollar spent on coal buys about 4 times as much energy as a dollar spent on diesel. If you take all that into account, you would find that you would save quite a bit of money by switching back to steam. But, alas, modern railroads believe that bring them back would make a deplorable statement of anti-progress. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
easagrippa (58 posts)
Sep-04-01, 11:10 PM (EST) 10. "RE: Steam in the USA" I'm going to point this out, their is a short line in the United States that still operates heavy steam locomotives on a daily bases. Technically. They haul one small freight train every week, hauling one or two grain cars and a box car on saturday a couple miles out to a mainline for pick up. For the most part thought they operate a tourist railroad. For those of you from Central Pennsylvania, you know I talking about America's oldest shortline from Strasburg to Paradise. The Strasburg Railroad. T I know they have a 2-10-0 that pulls alot of trains, and about fifteen years ago they had the State Railroad museum's K4 pulling their trains, but that has been moved across the street inside for preservation. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
sniper297 (358 posts)
Sep-04-01, 11:33 PM (EST) 11. "RE: Steam in the USA" Hey, widowmaker, cool info. Only problem I have with that is the same one I have with the diesels, one crew for many engines saves labor, but puts a lot of guys out of jobs. I suppose it was inevitable, tho, I think freight train crews are down to two instead of five now, unless you count FRED as a sort of combination crewman/caboose replacement. And advances in technology would make it possible to control everything by remote control, if not doing away with human operators altogether. I think they tried that in California on a rapid transit route, no engineer. The CTA also did away with conductors on the El and Subway trains. Sad. How good would these new steamers be about maintenance tho - would that water recycling thing eliminate all the man hours spent cleaning boiler tubes? I'd love to see steam make a comeback, but the thing you're describing makes it sound like today's cars - functional look-alike tin ovals with no individuality and no soul. Don't get me wrong, I've always been crazy about women, but there's nothing sexier on this earth than a Northern. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Widowmaker2k (32 posts)
Sep-05-01, 00:59 AM (EST) 12. "RE: Steam in the USA" I agree with you there. Theres nothing like being in a railyard with 3 Northerns and a Challenger, all with there boilers fired up and making steam. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
michigandon (86 posts)
Sep-05-01, 02:44 AM (EST) 13. "RE: Steam in the USA" You guys might find this to be some interesting reading:
http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/ult.htmlDon
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic