From: elw4@po.CWRU.Edu (Evan L. Werkema)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Keep it simple (was Re: compound locos (was Re: High Speed Rail Query)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:28:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: elw4@po.CWRU.Edu (Evan L. Werkema)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, johna@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (john.a.welsh) says:

>What does this prove? - KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid!  When it comes
>to the railroad environment, a little complexity increases costs
>a great deal. 

[...]

>This fragility may be the downfall of EMD from No. 1
>in the US diesel market.  The new energy saving circuit and engine
>designs are not as robust as the old 567s and 645s.  GE seems to
>have gotten a robust design that is also cost effective.  So it goes,
>the railroad is a tough place for machinery, and only the fittest
>will survive.  In 30 years, will people miss the SD-40 like we long
>to see a Berkshire?  We will see.

  I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that this was also the reason for
the relatively short lives of the SP TE70-4S's and the ATSF and UP SD45's 
repowered with the Swiss Sulzer engines.  The Sulzers were kind of like 
Porsches, they ran like a top when perfectly in tune, but the US operating 
and maintainence practices didn't keep them perfectly in tune, with the result
of frequent failures and high maintainence costs.

  On a slightly different tack, it seems that most engines originally designed
for marine service didn't work out well either.  Compound steam engines, as 
we've seen, were better adapted to the clean environment, large space, and 
more constant power requirements of a ship than a locomotive.  As for internal
combustion engines, ATSF tried a number of marine diesels when they dieselized
their gas-electric fleet, and found them all unsatisfactory until Caterpillar 
came out with an entirely new engine.  The McKeen cars were built by a ship-
builder (I think...they certainly looked like capsized ships!), and their open
design let in all the dirt and trash the railroad had to offer.  Then, of 
course, there were the FM o-p engines originally designed for WWII submarines
that were costly to maintain in a locomotive.  I have my suspicions, but does 
anybody know why Ingalls Shipbuilding only built that one demonstrator that 
eventually became GM&O 1900?  They had a large line of models in the catalog, 
but nobody bought.

  Simpler does seem to be better.  It's been said that a geep could run when
it was 3/5ths broke, and they're still running in droves on short lines.  I
can't help wondering how well the microprocessors in the SuperSeries and 
DASH-8's will hold up over the long hual.  I was talking to a crewman on the 
Santa Fe in Belen, NM once as we were standing beside B39-8 7401.  "Nice 
engine, isn't it?" he said, "We can't move it.  The computer found some 
problem and won't let the engine move until it's fixed."  I didn't think 
computers were that deeply integrated into the engines, but maybe so.
-- 
   -----_._._,_,,_,__._._     _._.__,_,,_,_._._----      
  _Ioo I ===        ====I     I====        === IooI____   I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
|_II___I____Santa Fe____I_| |_I__Evan Werkema__I__I___I_| I elw4@po.cwru.edu I
`-~O==O~===========~O==O~-`~`-~O==O~=============~O==O~-`~~o==o~\/~\/~\/~o==o~