Larry Gambone on the Railroads
General Motors destroyed the electric commuter railroads which flourished in the USA in the 1920's and '30's. They did this by insisting, as one of the largest shippers, that the railroads replace their electric locomotives with diesel units. Problem is diesel pollutes, the engines cost three times as much as an electric and last half as long. In 1935 there were seven times as many electric units as diesel, by 1970 there were ten times as many diesel as electric. (1)
But this was only the tip of the iceberg. After WW2 there was increasing pressure on the rail roads to convert from steam to diesel, as well. In 1945 almost all freight was transported by steam or electric.... This conversion process was a layer cake of disasters for both rail and the public.
First off, the expense for the railroad companies. Steam locomotives have a working life of about 50 years. Most of the engines were built in the 1930's, and those that weren't were from the 1920's or 1940's. Thus, we are looking at equipment that needed to be replaced from 1970 to 1990, yet they were all cut up for scrap metal by 1955! Locomotives were not the only loss. All the infrastructure created around steam, such as coaling stations, water towers, repair shops etc. either was scrapped or needed a complete and costly re-vamping. The destruction of all these locomotives and equipment is a loss that would run in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Even if much of the loss was written off in taxes, the expense was passed on to the tax-payer.
Now, while destroying all that perfectly good equipment, the rail lines would had to replace it with highly costly diesel units. Furthermore, these engines are not as durable as steam, are more complex, thus cost more to repair and need to be replaced more often....
At the very time rail made the highly costly switch over, it was losing both freight and passengers. Government built air ports were helping the airlines steal passengers. Government built highways were converting medium haul freight to trucks and train passengers to bus passengers. Thus rail was caught in a pincer - costly investment on one side, loss of revenue on the other. Note how the state helped to destroy rail. Consider the amount of tax-payer wealth that had gone into building the lines in the first place - land grants, cheap loans, cash gifts, tax-write-offs - all of these would total to hundreds of billions of dollars of OUR money. Yet our money, once again to the tune of hundreds of billions was being used to destroy this investment!
All this may seem insane, but this was planned to happen this way. The oil companies and the auto manufactures found another new way to pillage the public and using their mouth pieces in government destroyed rail. We do not live in a free market economy and we never have. We live in a planned economy, one that is organized not for the benefit of the people, but for a tiny wealthy minority.
corporate welfare , railroads , subsidies , transportation , airlines , highways ,
posted by Kevin Carson | 1:16 PM
7 Comments:
A few facts may be in order.
First, though, I'd like to a question. By the 1950s, diesel had replaced steam around the world. Is GM supposed to be at fault for the actions of Deutsche Bundesbahn or British Rail?
Now to the facts. All of this can be verified with a trip through the Wikipedia.
North American production of steam locomotives peaked in 1907 and steadily declined until it ceased totally in 1929. The first diesels appeared in 1924 and by the thirties, most passenger trains ran on diesel. Undoubtedly, the reason why the decline in steam production does not quite mesh with the rise of diesel is because the steam engines themselves were converted from coal to petroleum products, making them more efficient and reliable, giving steam one last gasp of life.
As for why they switched, "British Rail figures showed the cost of crewing and fuelling a steam locomotive was some two and a half times that of diesel power, and the daily mileage achievable was far lower. As labour costs rose, particularly after the second world war, non-steam technologies became much more cost-efficient".
Actually, I posted this because I liked it. And since I didn't know any of the stuff you guys pointed out, I guess I also deserve to be made fun of.
BTW, you should also check out some of the info Larry has in the comment thread for his railroad post.
Funny the hostility that anything positive about steam generates from some corners. People just don't want to admit that most "progress" is actually social engineering do they?
It would take up too much room here to deal with a rebuttle, but just one example of the poor documentation offered by my detractors is the statement that steam loco production ceased after 1929. Obviously this guy has never been to a train museum or looked at a book on locomotives. Sorry, fella but tey were buil;ding them right up into the late 1940's. My suggestion is that if anyone is interested to google a bit on new steam technologies.
General Motors destroyed the electric commuter railroads which flourished in the USA in the 1920's and '30's. They did this by insisting, as one of the largest shippers, that the railroads replace their electric locomotives with diesel units.
“What are you talking about here? How was GM a "major shipper" on a commuter line? See, you're mixing up streetcars with freight operations. When you say "electric locomotive" to what do you refer? Can we have some linkage or something? Also, did you know steam engines ran on diesel as well? Are you arguing that GM also destroyed coal and wood burning steam operations by insisting that steam engines run on diesel? “
This is a quote from The Dark Ages by Marty Jezer, Southend press 1982. It is a reference to local electric trains not trams, Freight was hauled on such lines. I know about oil burning stream locomotives and think it was a mistake as well, no doubt the oil companies encouraged them to do so
All the infrastructure created around steam, such as coaling stations, water towers, repair shops etc. either was scrapped or needed a complete and costly re-vamping.
“I explained why this was wrong. I worked on coal trains in the eighties that were running on the exact same tracks steam engines once ran on. “
I am obviously not talking about track but infrastructure around steam.
“Your main point seems to be that GM destroyed the railroads in some nefarious plot but your evidence doesn't prove it at all.”
It doesn’t have to be a “nefarious plot” but business as usual. Do you really suppose that GM and the oil companies didn’t benefit from the switch over and wouldn’t encourage this? Would it not have made more sense to develop advanced steam technology rather than become chained to petroleum? Look what is going to happen when we reach Peak Oil. Look also to the cost to the public of all of this, including first building the railroads, disgarding useful equipment, buying new equipment, and then having the state build up the comepetition thru highway construction. Who won? Who lost?
It is a reference to local electric trains not trams,
Unlike steam, both diesel and electric are perfectly viable technologies for powering railroad locomotives and both are used throughout the world. Electric engines are more efficient, cleaner and quieter. They are also capable of higher speeds. The disadvantage of electric is that it requires a much higher investment in infrastructure. Thus, it makes greater sense for commuter traffic. In particular, all subways in the world are electric. The Bullet train and the TGV are both electric. Freight, which is hauled long distances, is normally diesel. There are exceptions both ways. Many commuter trains are diesel and almost all track in Switzerland, both freight and passenger, is electric.
Freight was hauled on such lines.
There is no local freight trains traffic of any kind these days. Local freight is hauled on diesel trucks. Local freight trains are as obsolete as steam engines.
I know about oil burning stream locomotives and think it was a mistake as well, no doubt the oil companies encouraged them to do so.
I'm sure the oil companies did encourage them. So? That's not why they converted. They did it because it is both cheaper and better. Oil is far more "energy-dense" than coal. It doesn't require an fireman. The heat can be kept at a more constant temperature.
You didn't answer my question. "By the 1950s, diesel had replaced steam around the world. Is GM supposed to be at fault for the actions of Deutsche Bundesbahn or British Rail"? Face it, the steam engine is obsolete technology. Nobody uses steam for anything anymore, not just railroad locomotives.
I'll just say that it seems ludicrous to discuss this without discussing extraction costs and energy density, upon which all claims to "efficiency" are essentially based in terms of long haul transit.
Coal has low extraction costs and low energy density, oil has low (but rapidly rising) extraction costs and high energy density, nuclear is the only fuel at all comparable to oil, all three have similar levels of externalized pollution costs, except that nuclear waste could be feasibly more easily controlled.
The political manipulations to subsidize transition costs are fascinating (and expensive, if taken as told), but given the basic coal vs. oil argument, between 1940 and 1970 - when oil was this incredible exportable resource for the US and the Hubbert peak hadn't yet become scientific orthodoxy and global warming was still some ways in the future - it seems strange to suggest that it blocked some serious historical alternative to fossil fuel use when the apparent alternative was the less costly, long term transition to the same deisel based engine and the same fossil fuel intensive transit system.
Perhaps I'm missing some larger point: as I think someone noted already but if not, the railroads were created much the same as the airlines and the highways: state intervention with a great deal of public investment, the product of which was sold or handed off to the control of private interests
I have a hard time objecting to the advancement of choo choos: am I misreading this discussion if I take from it the objection to public investment? Or just how it's utilized?
If the investment is the objection would I be a jackass if - alternative means of basic research funding I'm open too, sure, direct me henceforth! - I pointed out that if not for a century or so of public investment in IT I'd have to pay for private postage to ask this question, whether or not I'm a simple jackass?
Post a Comment
<< Home