Relative Advantages of Modern Steam and Electric Locomotives By JOHN E. MUHLFELD Member American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Institute of Electrical Engineers As Presented Friday, October 22, 1920 New York City At the Joint Meeting of the Railroad, Metropol- itan and New York Sections of the Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Societies Compliments RAILWAY AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS INCORPORATED 25 BROAD STREET, NEW YORK Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/relativeadvantagOOmuhl UM3 M % °l 'T INDEX c<4 c Pages Preface 5-8 Conclusions 8-11 Legislation 11 Financing 12 Adaptability to Existing Trackage and Facilities 12 Effectiveness in Increasing Track Capacity 13-15 Train Speeds 16-17 Fuel Consumption 17-23 Efficiency of Locomotive Operation 23-29 Cost for Enginemen 29 Cost of Maintenance , 30 * Peak Load Conditions in Relation to Traffic Requirements 30-31 Ease of Starting Trains 31 Rate of Acceleration ' 31 Train Braking 31-32 Effect of Weather Conditions 32-33 Road Delays and Tie-Ups 33-34 Terminal Delays 34 Hazards 35 Discussions and Editorial Comments 36-65 S St. Paul Articulated Type Electric Locomotive Described on Paj^ 1 4 .^Tractive Power, Maximum 1 32,500 Lbs. — at 1 5 Miles per,Hour 71 J300 Lbs. Relative Advantages of Modern Steam and Electric Locomotives By John E. Muhlfeld Vice-President, Railway and Industrial Engineers, Incorporated PREFACE Mr. Chairman, Members and Guests: 1. I have the highest regard for my colleague, Mr. Frank J. Sprague, who opened this meeting, not only as a man, but as an electrical engineer who has done things, and I feel that the fol- lowing extract from his address at the 30th Anniversary of the Electrical Exhibition in Philadelphia in August, 1914, is well worth repeating at this time. 2. “One of the great ambitions of all of us has been to elec- trify the railroads of the world, especially the trunk line rail- roads. It has been a common prophecy of electrical engineers that main line railroads would be early electrified, and the steam locomotive thrown into the discard. Hopes have outpaced facts, for when the gilded electric giant — and gilded it must be because of the large amount of capital required — goes into the arena to meet its iron-dad opponent, the modern steam locomotive, on the basis of comparative economy of operation and capacity, it has been a hard row to hoe. 3. In the urban, suburban, and interurban fields, and now also in terminal operation, electricity holds its own, because it deals with classes of traffic often impossible for like operation by steam ; but when we get into the trunk line operated field we must then discard a great deal of existing investment, and must incur large investments at a time when money is very difficult to raise.” 4. In prefacing my conclusions and the supporting data on “The Relative Advantages of Modern Steam and Electric Loco- motives, ” and in view of the circular announcing this meeting being captioned “Railroad Electrification Night” I wish to refer for the moment to a similar memorial that I presented at a meet- ing of the New York Railroad Club in Carnegie Hall, on February 16, 1906, on “Large Electric and Steam Locomotives.” That paper was based, generally, on the relative performances on The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad of two geared electric locomotives, 5 each consisting of two units, which operated through seven tunnels over 3.4 miles of line ranging from 0.8 to 1.5% up-grade, with a ruling grade of % mile of 1.4 and 1.5 percent east-bound through Baltimore City, and of one Mallet type steam locomotive which operated over 16 V 2 miles of line ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 percent up-grade, with a ruling grade of 6 % miles of 1.0 percent east-bound, over the Allegheny Mountains. Both the electric and steam locomotives were of about the same tractive power rating, built and put into helper service at about the same time, and I desire to quote from that paper and to again — 14 years later — Reiterate as follows : 5. “What the stock owners and heads of railroads generally desire is to originate and move the greatest amount of business possible with the least cost to Capital and Operating Accounts.” 6 . “The locomotive problem must be attacked from a com- bined Transportation and Motive Power, and not from an Electrical or Mechanical Engineer’s viewpoint. There are suffi- cient locomotives of all kinds now under construction and in service on American railroads to give correct data as to what can be accomplished under varying conditions by either the electric or steam method of developing tractive power, and if unwhite- washed reports of their performance can be obtained it will be of invaluable assistance to electrical and mechanical engineers generally in meeting the present and future motive power requirements.” 7. “A steam locomotive in one section can be designed and placed under the control of one engineer and one fireman which will economically develop as much tractive power as may be necessary to haul the greatest amount of tonnage that can be concentrated in one train of suitable size for safe and quick handling over a division.” 8 . “The advantage of the electric locomotive for the handling of heavy tonnage would be from increasing the capacity of the line, and it might be that the greater business handled would justify the increased cost for installation and operation of electric locomotives as compared with steam locomotives.” 9. During the discussion of that paper some of my electrical friends predicted quite vigorously that within five (5) years— i.e., after 1911 — not a single order would be placed in this country for steam locomotives. In this they were correct, as not a single but many orders have since then been placed, the total purchases for use in the United States during the period 1906 to 1919 inclusive, being 39,782 steam locomotives, of which 19,489 have been ordered since 1911. Furthermore, since 1906 the average tractive power per steam locomotive in use in the United States has increased from about 24,750 to 35,000 pounds, or over 41 percent. 6 10. That Mr. Sprague’s and my own earlier conclusions as cited were not radically wrong may be confirmed by what has transpired. For example, the New York “Tribune” has recently published a series of articles by Railroad Chairman and Presi- dents, on problems confronting the Carriers as regards adequate transportation facilities for the future, in which no reference was made to the necessity for any steam road electrification. Mr. Julius Kruttschnitt referred to the substitution of heavier modern for light obsolete locomotives, the elimination of every pound of unnecessary dead weight without sacrifice of strength or safety, and the conservation of fuel by the application of improvements and the education of employees. Mr. A. H. Smith referred to an electrification project for a city that would cost $60,000,000 but which would produce no revenue whatsoever. . As Mr. Smith has had experience with electrification he ought to know. Mr. F. D. Underwood said that “the average man does not realize what a wonderful machine the steam locomotive is “that the capital expenditures involved in changing from steam to electric operation are enormous,” and that “but for the notable improvements in steam locomotives which have enabled the roads to offset increased costs, they would have all been bankrupt.” 11. In line with the foregoing, Mr. J. J. Hill, a few years before his death stated that the Mallet type of steam locomotive had set back the time for electrification at least fifteen years, and Mr. L. F. Loree, who made the Mallet type of locomotive in the United States an established fact and who has done as much as, if not more than, any other railroad executive to increase locomo- tive and freight car capacities and efficiencies has as yet been unable to determine upon any steam road divisional electrifica- tion scheme in any part of the country that is justified as compared with steam operation. 12. We all know that the foregoing named executives and railroads are representative of broad gauge policies and they do not hesitate to make improvements — when money can be pro- cured — provided the expenditures will produce a proper rate of return in operating efficiency and economy in addition to the carrying charges. 13. From 1903 to 1917 every mountain pass controlled by the Harriman lines — and two that were studied in reconnoissance — were investigated for electrification but in no case did the operating results justify the same as compared with steam operation. 14. In the 1913 transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, pages 1845-1875, a paper on the subject of “Mountain Railway Electrification” by Mr. Allen H. Babcock, Electrical Engineer of the Southern Pacific, which related to the 7 proposed electrification of a district of that line which included 38 miles of 2.4 percent ruling grade between Bakersfield and Mojave, California, was published in full detail, and further the paper was placed in the hands of the engineers of two large electric locomotive manufacturers in this country with instruc- tions to “tear it to pieces.” With one exception, and which was a criticism directed to the point of view taken, rather than to the facts, by Mr. H. M. Hobart, of the General Electric Company, (pages 1256-1260 in the transactions referred to) no criticism was made of Mr. Babcock’s conclusion — which was that elec- trification was not justified. 15. Similarly, in a report made in January, 1914, by Mr. J. P. Ripley, of the J. G. White Management Corporation, on the possibilities from the electrification of 23 miles of double track line of the Santa Fe between Trinidad, Col., and Raton, New Mexico, covering ruling grades of from 3.32 to 3.5 percent and 10 degree curvature, over Raton Mountain summit, and at which time both the use of coke oven gas at two cents per 1000 cu. feet delivered at the railway’s power plant, and of purchased power were considered, electrification was not justified due to the relatively small average amount of traffic as compared with the tonnage to be moved at periods of great traffic density and on account of the savings in operation not even equalling the fixed charge brought about by electrification. 16. In line with the foregoing, several years ago a report was made on the advisability of electrifying about 275 miles, or a division, of one of the more prominent western lines, and an erroneous comparison was made, first, between the existing antiquated and uneconomical steam and an up-to-date electric operation; and second, by omitting the investment required to bring the steam operation up to date. When all involved factors were properly adjusted the net capital expenditure of $4,000,000 required for electrification compared with $1,000,000 as needed for modernizing the steam equipment, and the estimated annual operating saving of approximately $750,000 from electrification was wiped out and replaced by a saving of $250,000 from a continuation of the improved steam operation. 17. The foregoing are only a few cases where steam railway electrification projects that were thought to be entirely feasible, were, upon serious investigation, found not to be justified and indicate the caution that must be exercised in analyzing steam railroad motive power and transportation problems. CONCLUSIONS 18. The Federal Control and Guaranty periods of the steam railroads of the country ended on February 28th and August 31st last, respectively, and these properties are again in the 8 hands of their owners and under the direction of the Transpor- tation Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission. 19. Today, in consideration of the existing traffic rates and regulations as established by the Interstate Commerce Com- mission, and the wages and working conditions as recommended by the Railroad Labor Board, it is assumed that the railroads as a whole will average net operating earnings equal to 6 percent on their valuation as fixed from time to time by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Some railroads may earn more and some will earn less, but in the case of every line the minimum fixed charge and the maximum operating and maintenance economy will be required if the stock owners are to receive even a reasonable return on their investments. 20. In the protection and control of railroad net earnings one of the most important factors is the kind of motive power to be used, and unfortunately, in making comparisons of the relative values of steam and electric railway power, some of the electrical engineers have frequently given out such an attractive and confident line of loose figures that railway managers and their engineers have often been misled into making recommenda- tions that have later resulted in embarrassment. In fact, references can be made to figures set forth in some of the leading technical journals during the past year that would properly be classified as a “bunch of bull” by competent engineers who have been in active railway service and seen any considerable steam and electric locomotive performances. For example, comparisons have been made; between the operations of new up-to-date electric and of obsolete steam installations; of costs of repairs per locomotive mile for electric and steam locomotives of different dates built new, and of different average ages ; and of fuel rates at the sub-stations of modern central power stations with fuel rates of obsolete steam locomotives, per horsepower hour. Also assumptions have been made of extraordinary steam locomotive standby fuel losses; inclusion of steam locomotive tender, but exclusion of electric locomotive non-adhesive weight as non- revenue train tonnage; and of like erroneous factors. It is just as misleading to use as a basis for comparison the present most efficient electric locomotive operation on the St. Paul and that of its saturated steam locomotives of 1910, as it would be to compare the present most efficient superheated steam locomotive performance on the Baltimore and Ohio with its electric operation. 21. When we discuss or recommend the further electrifica- tion of the whole or any part of the 260,000 miles of steam operated railroad system in the United States, which is now making use of about 65,000 steam and 375 electric locomotives for its passenger, freight and terminal service, the most important item involved is a correct and complete statement of 9 facts, comparing the most up-to-date steam with similar electric operations, after which immediately come the important factors of the necessary financing and legislation. 22. To reflect initial and operating costs from a credit or an investment standpoint and to interpret faithfully on the basis of expert judgment backed by practical experience, the probable effect on the annual balance sheet, any investigation for the purpose of determining upon the advisability of electrical or steam operation for an existing or new line of railroad should be made, preferably by a committee consisting of experts in railway mechanical, electrical and civil engineering, transportation, and accounting, without an endeavor to modify the best steam rail- roading methods to suit the requirements of electric traction, and by keeping clearly in mind the fundamental fact that while anything within reason is possible, provided enough money can be spent, if the Auditor’s annual statement cannot show the balance on the right side of the ledger the project will have failed from the most important point of view. 23. While there is much existing steam road trackage that can and should receive first consideration as regards electrifica- tion for the purpose of eliminating gases from underground terminals and tunnels, to give relief to terminal or line traffic congestion by combined rapidity and frequency of train move- ment in the vicinity of large commercial and industrial centers, or where transportation operations are auxiliary to mining or other industries requiring the extensive use of electricity, it would be financial suicide to electrify immediately adjacent connecting and intermediate long haul mileage, particularly in view of the improvements that can be made in both existing and new steam locomotives in the matter of reducing smoke, sparks, cinders and noise and in increasing general capacity, efficiency and economy in operation and maintenance. Without a doubt the advent of the electric locomotive has awakened the mechanical engineer, and the competition it has brought about has been one of the greatest factors in promoting the progress that is now being made in steam locomotive efficiency and economy. At the same time the electric heavy traction engineers have a wide field for the introduction of electrification on steam lines penetrating long tun- nels, in busy city terminals, in dense passenger traffic zones, and for suburban traffic where the by-products of combustion are undesirable. Also on congested heavy mountain grade lines where adequate and cheap hydro-electric current may make electrification justifiable. 24. With the decreased value of gold and purchasing power of the dollar has come an increase of from 4 and 5, to 7 and 8 percent in the cost for money, which, in combination with the 100 to 150 percent increase in the cost for labor and material makes the procurement today of the most pressing railroad 10 capital needs almost prohibitive. Therefore, when engineers and politicians propose reckless super-power plans for the electri- fying even of such belts of steam roads as lie in the densely populated district between Washington, D.C., and Boston, at a new capital cost to the railroads approximating a billion of dollars, and in addition mark off the books the principal value of existing steam locomotives, passenger cars, shops, and terminal and intermediate facilities that would be unsuitable for the electrified service, they are planning either a new road to railroad bankruptcy, or a further burden in traveling and shipping costs, or in taxes, which would be representative of criminal waste instead of increased earning capacity by means of more efficient and economical operation. 25. Furthermore, before the electric locomotive can be made permissible for general application the electrical engineer must reduce his first costs; promote interchangeability; provide a motor which will efficiently, economically and flexibly cover a wide range of speeds and not break down or deteriorate from overloading and heating; reduce complication, wear and cor- rosion in transmission and contact line apparatus ; and substantially reduce the current losses and the liability for failure between the point' of power production and the locomotive drawbar. Likewise the steam railway mechanical engineers, locomotive builders and specialty manufacturers, if they are to guard the steam locomotive and continue it in its present field of usefulness, must become more active in modernization and bring about improvements that will substantially increase its capacity and thermal efficiency by the use of higher steam pres- sures and superheat; compounding; more efficient methods of combustion ; utilization of waste exhaust steam and products of combustion heat ; better distribution and use of live steam ; reduc- tion of dynamic weights ; greater percentage of adhesive to total weight and a lower factor of adhesion; and by a substantial reduction in standby. 26. As both steam and electric locomotives should have a useful life of from 25 to 50 years from the date built these policies should be inaugurated now by the railroad executives in order that the least artificial age will be capitalized in all new built motive power. 27. In order to determine the relative advantages of modern steam and electric locomotives the following may be stated as important items for consideration : Legislation 28. This may be of such varied character that any assump- tions for analyses purposes are out of the question. 11 Financing 29. The electrification of the steam roads in the United States since 1895 now embraces about 1250 road miles on 18 different lines and 375 electric locomotives, of which total about 375 road miles on nine different lines and 230 locomotives (as well as 1000 motor cars) are located in the territory between Washington, D.C., and Boston. 30. In view of past experience probably little if any finan- cing of steam road electrification projects in the United States can be undertaken, particularly at present interest on money and labor and material prices, unless the returns are more adequately and fully guaranteed. In fact, few if any existing steam roads can justify or stand the additional capital investment required per mile of road for electrification, except for short distances under very special conditions such as prevailed on the Norfolk and Western, where the ventilation and 1.5 percent grade line features of a five-eighths mile single track tunnel restricted the train movements to a 6 mile per hour basis on a congested traffic section of the main line, and even then only providing the fixed charges and operating expenses are not too excessive. 31. The immediate requirements of new money for the more urgent steam equipment and facilities needed to provide adequate, safe and expeditious rather than luxurious service in the regeneration of the railroads, is the obvious reason for the continued utilization of the over-all more economical steam oper- ation, and only after the possibilities in this direction have been realized can any serious financial consideration be given to the proposed radical change to super-electrification. Adaptability to Existing Trackage and Facilities 32. First and foremost in the advantages of a continuation of the existing improved steam locomotive for all purposes for which it is permissible, is its flexibility and adaptability to existing railroad trackage and terminal and operating facilities, and the relatively low first cost at which it can be purchased per unit of power developed for the movement of traffic. Being a self-contained mobile power plant, it is possible to quickly trans- fer needed or surplus power from one part of the line to another and to concentrate it when and where necessary, whereas with the electric locomotive this is impossible unless electrification extends over the entire property or the sources of power supply have almost prohibitive peak load capacity. Furthermore, the various systems of electrification do not make the interchanging of electric locomotives practicable without much non-productive first-cost, complication, and maintenance and operating expense. 12 Effectiveness in Increasing Track Capacity. 33. Without a doubt electrification increases the capacity of a terminal and this is fully evidenced by the intensified traffic movements at Grand Central Station in New York, and at Broad Street Station in Philadelphia, but an analysis of the situation on the New York Central shows that this is not due to decreasing locomotive movements through the use of multiple units as is usually stated. For example, through line passenger trains are handled in and out of Harmon with single steam the same as with single electric locomotives, and as regards commutation service, this is largely a motor car proposition, as is indicated by the fact that as compared with 73 electric locomotives the New York Central has 241 motor cars and no trailers. 34. As already set forth, special line conditions, as on the Norfolk and Western, may make electrification advisable for short distances, but neither the results on that road nor at the New York terminals justify the frequent reference by electrical engineers to the weakness of steam locomotive haulage during the unprecedented cold weather and volume of traffic conditions during the winters of 1917-18, in that electrification would not have obviated the difficulty. If so, then why did the New Haven not operate at 100 percent of its capacity, over its electrified zone at that time? If short of locomotives or motor cars the New York Central had plenty of surplus that was not in use and which could not be utilized outside of its own electric zone on lines where it was badly needed. The probable answer is lack of interchangeability which is still one of the most discouraging operating factors involved in any electrification scheme and was fully brought out in the last report of the A.R.A. Committee on Design, Maintenance and Operation of Electric Rolling Stock wherein the wide variation of current generating, transmitting, distributing and contact systems, voltages, types of locomotives and of general ideas relating to the same sets forth the present undeveloped state of the art. 35. Furthermore, in the handling of heavy tonnage trains by the unlimited combining of electric locomotive units, the factors of peak load, transmission lines, and power plant capacity must all be considered with the probability that permissible modern steam locomotive train units can be more economically handled over dense traffic lines than the electric multiple unit super-trains. Although under the multiple unit system of loco- motive and train operation it is theoretically possible to provide unlimited sustained hauling capacity, at the head of the train, the tonnage to be handled without rear end or intermediate helpers is limited by the ability of the draft rigging on the cars to withstand the pull and shock, and this limitation can be readily met and exceeded in steam locomotive design and operation, as 13 may be noted from the following comparison of the St. Paul electric freight and the Virginian steam freight articulated types of locomotives as shown in Table I. TABLE I ITEM St. Paul Electric Articulated Virginian Steam Articulated 1 Tractive power, in simple gear, maximum .... 132,500 lbs 176,600 lbs 2 “ “ , “ compound gear, “ .... 3 “ “ , at 15 miles per hour 147,200 “ 71,000 “ 108,000 “ 4 Wheel arrangement, (excluding tender) 4-8-8-4 2-10-10-2 5 Length over all, (including tender) 112 ft 107 ft 6 Total wheel base, (including tender) 102' 8" 97' 0" 7 Driving wheel base 75' 0" 64' 3" 8 Rigid wheel base 10' 6" 19' 10" 9 Total weight on driving wheels 448,000 lbs 617,000 lbs 10 “ “ “ truck wheels 116,000 “ 67,000 “ 11 “ “ of tender (with Yi fuel and water capacity) 148,000 “ 12 “ “ of locomotive 564,000 “ 832,000 “ 13 Truck wheels — Total No 8 4 14 Driving “ — Total No 15 “ “ — Diameter 16 20 52" 56" 16 “ “ — Adhesive weight to total 79.4% 90% 17 “ “ — “ “ per axle, average. . . 56,000 “ 61,700 “ 18 “ “ — Unsprung weight per axle, average. . . 16,250 “ 12,000 “ 19 Factor of adhesion — Maximum tractive effort. 3.38 3.49 20 “ “ “ — Tractive effort at 15 MPH 6.31 5.70 Electricity Superheated from steam from 21 Source of Power • outside self-contain- hydro-elec- ed Boiler tric plant Plant Note — Item 16 indicates percentage of driving wheel adhesive weight to total of engine. When tender is added this figure would be 74 per cent for Virginian steam locomotive. 36. In a recent published comparison of Electric and Steam Motive Power a 100 car 5,000 gross ton freight train east-bound at Thelma, on a 0.33 percent average grade on the St. Paul, behind one of its electric locomotives, was featured, and the following is quoted: “Further instances could be cited where the benefits of electrification are badly needed and many of these are coal carrying roads, among which the Virginian Railway stands out conspicuously as a good opportunity to make both a necessary improvement and a sound investment.” 37. In connection with the foregoing it may be stated that on the Virginian on October 8, 1909, a saturated steam Mikado locomotive, No. 430, of about 50,000 pounds tractive power rating, hauled from Victoria depot to Sewalhs Point, a distance of 127.1 miles, against a 0.2 percent average gradient, 100 14 standard cars of coal and caboose weighing 7.580 gross, and 5,892 net tons of trailing load, in 8 hours-42 minutes, with 13.1 net tons of coal fired, or less than 27.2 pounds of coal per 1,000 gross ton miles. 38. Furthermore, the Virginian steam Mallets as described in connection with the St. Paul Electric locomotive on page 14 operate between Elmore and Clark's Gap, over about 13.5 miles of 2.07 percent compensated grade and through 5 tunnels ranging from 325 to 1253 feet in length, and can haul, without helper assistance, 40 cars of coal and caboose weighing 3160 gross and 2200 net tons of trailing load, in 1 hour-15 minutes, with 8.2 net tons of coal fired on 384 pounds of coal per 1000 gross ton miles. 39. Electrification was established on the St. Paul during December, 1915, and the comparisons with the Virginian, shown in Table II, as to annual operating results obtained, are of inter- est, and from which it would appear that the St. Paul electrifica- tion has produced no benefit, and that the Virginian steam operation is a very satisfactory one, so far as the public and the stock owners are concerned : TABLE II 1919 1918 1917 1916 1915 1914 1913 1912 1911 1910 | 554 536 468 425 390 380 357 288 275 276 | .92 OO .76 .76 .78 .81 .79 .84 .84 .84 J92.15 92.0 74.9 65.5 67.8 67.0 66.8 75.6 72.4 69.1 1712 1483 1508 1578 1469 1410 1111 1049 1132 809 .49 .42 .36 .34 OO CO .34 .35 .36 .43 J 76.0 77.9 57.7 52.0 58.0 55.0 57.7 61.4 59.3 69.5 Year St. Paul Average Freight Train Load (Tons) Average Rate Received per Freight Ton Mile (Cents) Operating Ratio- Per cent Operating Expenses to Gross . Operating Revenue Virginian Average Freight Train Load (Tons) Average Rate Received per Freight Ton Mile (Cents) Operating Ratio — Per cent Operating Expenses to Gross Operating Revenue 15 Train Speeds 40. The average freight car is in main line movement only about 10 percent of its life, or 2 hours and 24 minutes out of each 24 hours. The balance of its time can be distributed 55 percent in the hands of the railroads on account of interchanges, yard and loading and unloading track movements, surplus cars, repair tracks and road delays, and 35 percent in the hands of the shipper and consignee, due to loading and unloading recon- signment and Sundays and holidays. Therefore, increasing train speeds beyond established economic limits at the sacrifice of tonnage, and with an increase in power fuel, track and equip- ment upkeep and danger of operation is not the solution of the freight traffic problem. For example, an increase of 50 percent over and above the established economic freight train speeds would be only 72 minutes of the daily life of each freight car, whereas capital expenditures applied to the reduction of those delays which now involve over 21 1/2 hours per day, or about 90 percent of the life of the car, would give much more effective and economical results. 41. As the electric locomotive is a constant speed proposi- tion, whether going up or down grade, and is unable to utilize its rated capacity and effectiveness through the same range of speed and tractive power variations as the more flexible steam locomotive, the latter can therefore be more efficiently operated over the continually changing up and down grades, levels, curves and tangents traversed by the average freight train in this country. 42. With respect to passenger train service, where speed is more of a factor, the steam locomotive performs equally satisfactory. For example, on the main line of The Baltimore and Ohio, for a distance of 17 miles between Piedmont, West Virginia, and Altamont, Maryland, the average gradient is 2.2 percent. A single Pacific type locomotive with a tractive power of 43,400 pounds will haul up this grade, without helper, in 50 minutes' time, or at an average speed of 20 miles per hour, a passenger train consisting of nine cars weighing 620 tons with- out, and 830 tons with locomotive. The same train will make the trip down grade in 35 minutes, or at an average speed of 28 V 2 miles per hour. The average total weight of engine and tender of these Pacifies is 210 tons, which may be compared with a total weight of 265 tons for the St. Paul electric locomotives which are used to handle similar passenger trains up 17 miles of 2.2 percent grade from the Columbia River west at an average speed of 25 miles per hour. 43. When it comes to excessive and expensive passenger train speeds it is only necessary to refer to the discontinued 18 - 16 hour trains on the New York Central and the Pennsylvania between New York and Chicago, to the Philadelphia- Atlantic City service on the Reading, and to the run made in May, 1893, when engine No. 999 in charge of Engineer Charlie Hogan, on the Empire State Express, covered a mile in 32 seconds, or at the rated speed of 112 1/2 miles per hour, which is a pattern for the electrical engineer to work to. In fact, it would be interesting to see one of the new Centipede, bi-polar, gearless type of St. Paul passenger locomotives, with its 12 pairs of 44 inch diameter driving, and two pairs of guiding wheels with extremely low centre of gravity for unsprung weight, operate at such speed or even at speeds of from 70 to 85 miles per hour, which are daily being made by large steam Pacific type passenger locomotives on various roads throughout the country. Fuel Consumption. 44. Great economy in fuel consumption and cost is the principal claim for electrification and ever since the Presidential address at the A.I.E.E. Convention held in New York on Feb- ruary 15, 1918, the guardians of the steam railroads have been “fed up” on the theory that it would be possible to save at least two-thirds of the coal consumed, by the then existing steam locomotives and that the useful carrying capacity of existing trackage could be increased about 10 percent by the elim- ination of company coal movement, if electric locomotives were substituted. In fact, eminent electrical engineers have recently arrived at the startling conclusion that had the railroads of the United States, using 63,000 steam locomotives, been completely electrified in 1918 along lines fully tried out and proved successful today, they would have required, without the use of any water or other power, only 53,500,000, instead of 176,000,000 tons of coal or its equivalent, thereby effecting a modest saving of more than two-thirds, or 122,500,000 tons. 45. The basis for arriving at these comparative figures is so obviously ridiculous that they warrant comment only for the reason of the general publicity given. For example, facts as taken from the Interstate Commerce Commission Statistics of Railways in the United States for the year ended December 31, 1918, are that a total of 3,615,697 tons of anthracite and 134,- 214,480 tons of bituminous coal, 1,638,956,953 gallons of oil and 72,447 cords of hard and 182,267 cords of soft wood were con- sumed by about 63,531 steam locomotives averaging 34,995 pounds tractive power each. This total coal, oil and wood is equivalent to about 149,106,901 tons of coal, and it cost about $500,225,205.00 delivered on the locomotive tenders. These au- thoritative figures immediately reduce the average of 2793 tons as stated by the electrical engineers, to an average of 2347 tons, as actually charged and used per locomotive, during the year, 17 and show an erroneous over-statement of a total of 28,334,726 tons, or an average of 446 tons of coal equivalent, per locomotive, per year, or a decrease of 19 percent in the stated fuel consump- tion that electrification would in no wise affect. 46. Again for the steam operation a coal rate of 12.75 pounds per kilowatt-hour of useful work done, as measured at the driving wheel treads, (just how this was computed is not understood) or seven pounds per kilowatt-hour (including trans- mission and conversion losses inherent in electrical operation) as measured at a central power station, was based on some tests made in 1910 on the St. Paul of some probably long since anti- quated types of saturated steam locomotives. Then for the elec- trical operation a modernized central power station coal rate of 2*4 pounds per kilowatt-hour in combination with a 40 watt hour rate at the point of delivery of the power to the railroad system for moving a gross ton mile of passenger and freight train was used, which would produce a movement of 1,000 average gross ton miles for 100 pounds of coal of about 12,000 BTU value per pound as fired. Tn arriving at these data ap- parently factors were overlooked or disregarded such as ; gradi- ent and curvature ; drifting train mileage ; human element ; the necessity for hauling one-third of the freight car miles without lading and its effect on train resistance ; the necessity for from 4 to 5 percent light locomotive mileage in order to meet traffic movement requirements with no trailing tonnage whatsoever as a divisor into the fuel or current used ; the use of 15,000 loco- motives in switching and transfer service; the existence of 25.000 steam locomotives equipped with superheaters and of 35.000 equipped with firebrick baffle walls; the past ten years’ improvement in steam locomotive boilers and machinery; that electrification will not eliminate the rail haulage of company coal or of dead weight on locomotive leading and trailing truck wheels; that large central power stations will only show a fuel saving when operated somewhere near their rated capacity with- out peak load conditions ; that the inter-connecting of electrifica- tion systems will result in prohibitive conversion and transmis- sion losses; that electric motors must operate at predetermined loads to produce maximum efficiency ; that central power stations cannot be regulated to a basis of 50 percent average load factor ; and many others. 47. However, accepting the assertion that the proposed electrification will produce 1000 gross ton miles for an average of 40 kilowatt-hours, or 100*pounds of 12,000 BTU coal, as stated and generally approved by electrical engineers, what can the modern steam locomotive do to justify its existence? IS 48. Dynamometer car tests made by a Joint Committee of representatives of the New York Central and Pennsylvania Rail- road and the American Locomotive Companies during August, 1910, of the first Mallet type of locomotive put into use on the Pennsylvania Division of the New York Central and operated over the 65 miles of average .5 percent grade line, between Avis and Wellsboro Jet., may be cited. This locomotive was built ten years ago and by no means represents the best practice of the present day when superheat has been increased and a more efficient all round machine is produced. At that time the average of six runs gave a thermal efficiency of 6.01 for the locomotive, and a test made on August 27, 1910, is representative and shown in Table III. TABLE III Miles run, about 65 Cars in train, No 65 Cars in train, tonnage 3,734 Running time 4 Hrs. 35 Min. Time on road 6 Hrs. 51 L; Min. Average speed, MPH 12.9 Thermal efficiency of locomotive * 6.25% Dry coal per drawbar horsepower hour 2.90 BTU in dry coal as fired 14,053 | Cut-off — Drawbar horsepower 1270.4 Drawbar pull 34071 Steam pressure in branch pipe 203 . 3 Superheat in branch pipe 143 . 7 Machine efficiency of locomotive 89.21 Boiler efficiency 69.07 49. Taking now the entire New York Central with its high and low’ grade lines and the Pittsburg and Lake Erie with its low-grade lines and we have from the Government reports for the year 1919 the coal consumption for all freight locomotives as shown in Table IV. TABLE IV Railroad Pounds of Coal Consumed per 1000 Gross Ton Miles Jan., Feb., March April, May, June July, Aug., Sept. Oct., Nov., Dec. New York Central Pittsburg and Lake Erie 1 155.0 104.3 124.6 82.1 119.0 77.2 147.8 95.7 19 50. The foregoing do not show an opportunity to bring about a two-thirds saving in fuel by electrification, and there is no doubt but that these steam locomotive performances can be substantially improved. 51. Furthermore, the 2-6-6-2 type Mallet steam locomotives of about 88,500 pounds in compound, and 106,200 pounds in simple gear tractive power, operating over a distance of about 155 miles of average rolling high-grade line with a ruling grade of 1.18 per cent seven miles long, between Birmingham, Ala., and Columbus, Ga., on the Central of Georgia, during which periods steam is used about 50 percent of the time, the locomotive drift- ing the balance of the time, produce a figure of 106 pounds of coal of approximately 13,500 BTU value per pound per thousand gross ton miles, and which compares quite favorably with the foregoing hypothetical figures as given for electric operation. 52. The results of some dynamometer car tests made during 1918, to which year the statements pertaining to this proposed fuel saving apply, may be of interest. At that time the steam locomotives tested were of the ordinary superheated Mikado freight type of the following general description : Weight on driving wheels 110 Tons Weight on truck wheels 32 “ Cylinders, simple 25x32" Driving wheels, diameter 56" Steam pressure 200 Lbs. Tractive power 59,600 Lbs. 53. One locomotive was fitted for hand firing and burning coal on grates, while another was equipped with the “LOPULCO” system for burning powdered coal in suspension, and the tests were made in tonnage freight service handling from 2400 to 2600 tons east-bound and from 1850 to 2250 tons west-bound on the Santa Fe main line between Ft. Madison, Iowa, and Marce- line, Mo., (the profile consisting of .8 percent ruling grades) a distance of 112.7 miles, during March and April, 1918. The coal averaged from 1 to 8 percent moisture, 33 to 38 percent volatile, 51 to 41 percent of fixed carbon, 15 to 12 percent ash, 4 to 3 Yf> percent sulphur, and from 12,055 to 11,050 BTU as fired. The comparative average results are shown in Table V. 20 TABLE V ITEM Powdered Coal Locomotive Hand Fired Locomotive 1 Total trips run (112.7 miles each) 14 10 2 “ miles “ 1578 1127 3 Average running time — Hours 5.06 5.25 4 “ dead time — “ 1.25 1.01 5 “ total time — “ 6.31 6.26 6 “ speed, MPH 22.3 21.6 7 “ trailing tonnage per train 2278 2283 8 “ gross 1000 ton miles 256.5 255.4 9 “ coal per gross 1000 ton miles 82.4 114.8 10 “ superheat — degrees Fahrenheit 223 173 11 “ coal per boiler and superheater HP Hour. . 3.74 4.99 12 “ BTU per pound of coal as fired, lbs. . . 12,025 11,160 54. As the coal supplied to the grates of the hand fired locomotive was considerably lower in heat value than that specified in the electrification project, and as the tests were run during March and April, it can be assumed from the foregoing that the average yearly performance will approximate 100 pounds of 12,000 BTU coal per 1000 gross ton miles, or equiv- alent to what we are promised for the expenditure of billions of dollars of new capital and the loss of billions of dollars worth of investment in existing plant and equipment to inaugurate the comforts of electrification. 55. On the Delaware and Hudson between Carbondale, Pa., and Oneonta, N. Y., a distance of about 94 miles, of which 74 miles is 0.3 percent ruling grade, their hand fired Consolidation type locomotives averaging about 65,000 pounds tractive power, will, with helper service over 20 miles of from 1.0 to 1.4 percent grade, handle freight trains averaging about 3,800 actual gross tons at an average speed of about 15 miles per hour, and with a coal consumption (mixture of 50% anthracite buckwheat and 50% run-of-mine bituminous) of about 76 pounds per 1000 gross ton miles when using a feed water heater and of about 86 pounds when using injectors (exclusive of coal used by helpers). 56. It is also not out of order to refer to dynamometer car tests which it is understood have been made on the New York Central, wherein on the basis of the same comparative thermal value of the coal, a single expansion superheated steam locomo- tive required, per drawbar horsepower hour, about 2.6 pounds of coal as compared with about 2.25 pounds for an electric locomotive. 21 57. Mr. A. Lipotz, Chief of the Russian Mission of Ways of Communication, has also presented some data relating to exhaus- tive tests made on Russian Railroads during the period 1908 to 1914, with simple and cross-compound types of steam locomotives with and without superheaters, which are of interest in this connection. These locomotives were of the Mogul type of approx- imately the following general characteristics: Cylinders, simple, diameter “ , cross-compound, dia._ “ , stroke Driving wheels, diameter Steam pressure Weight, on driving wheels “ > total exclusive of tender 191 / 2 " HP 191 / 2 " LP 291 / 2 " 251/2" 67" 185 Lbs. 104.000 Lbs. 132.000 Lbs. 58. When operated on four different divisions, with trains of the same tonnage and under otherwise like conditions the greatest fuel economy was obtained with the cross compound- superheater locomotives and successively, with the simple cylin- der-superheater, cross compound-saturated and simple cylinder- saturated. In general average the cross compound locomotives showed a saving of about 17 percent as compared with the simple, and the superheater locomotives showed a saving of about 21 percent as compared with the saturated, while the cross com- pound-superheater locomotives showed a combined saving of about 35 percent as compared with the simple-saturated locomotives. 59. The Russian Railroad results from cross compounding and superheating are confirmed by the performance obtained from similar equipment applied to various types of locomotives on various railroads in this country and Canada from time to time, and as there are now about 65,000 steam locomotives in the United States, of which probably 62,000 have simple and only 3.000 have compound cylinders, and of which total only about 25.000 are as yet equipped with superheaters, the foregoing indicates what steam locomotive fuel savings are still possible merely through the application of cross compounding or super- heating, or these combined factors. 60. Just as the Interborough Rapid Transit Company has found it possible to bring about a saving of from 15 to 20 percent in current consumption by means of coasting recorders as a check on the human factor, so can the proper organization and field supervision, checking and education reduce the fuel losses, wastes and consumption of the existing steam locomotives and 22 the increasing cost of coal and oil will no doubt bring about early and extraordinary savings and economies in that direction, from the source of fuel supply to the stack, to the end that 1000 BTU’s of fuel fired will produce greater thermal efficiency than ever before. That this is entirely practicable may be confirmed by some tests made under the direction of Professor Goss at the Altoona Testing Plant of the Pennsylvania Railroad some years ago, when in a series of steam locomotive tests he reduced the dry coal fired per drawbar horsepower hour from 5.2 to 3.9 pounds, or about 33 percent, by merely substituting experienced for inexperienced firemen. Efficiency of Locomotive Operation 61. The off-setting fuel and energy losses, due to standby in the steam operation, and decrease in efficiency on account of fluctuating loads in the electric operation must not be lost sight of. Neither should those incident to the transforming, trans- mission and conversion of electric current and like factors be neglected. 62. It is unquestionably true that when operating under ideal fixed load conditions, .the central power station, either hydro-electric or steam, can produce a horsepower with less . initial energy input than is possible on a steam locomotive. It is * also true that the standby losses on existing steam locomotives are, in ordinary practice, a serious proportion of the total fuel consumption, but it is likewise a fact that the majority of these can be substantially reduced if not entirely overcome, by modern- izing the present equipment and improving maintenance and operation, which would then rob the electrical engineers of their main argument in favor of a blanket electrification. 63. While the electrical engineers and manufacturers in this country deserve great credit for the progress made in the development of the electric locomotive, they have as yet been unable to design one which can operate at maximum efficiency throughout its range of load. The point of maximum efficiency being well established and fixed, and the current curve on an electric motor not being flat, any over or under-load from the predetermined maximum efficiency load increases the current consumption. Furthermore, when, on account of transportation conditions a motor is required to carry an overload for periods of five or six hours, it either breaks down due to heating or otherwise requires special power consuming auxiliaries or long rest periods for the dissipation of the heat stored within itself due to the resistance of the current through the wiring, to permit of continuous operation. 23 64. However, what the steam engineer is unable to reconcile in electric locomotive design, is such radical departures in one year’s time as have taken place in the St. Paul electric pas- senger locomotives, as may be noted from Table VI. TABLE VI Railroad ST. I >AUL No. of locomotives 5 10 Year put into service 1920 1920 Class of service Pass. Pass. Driving wheels, No 24 12 “ “ , Diameter 44" 68" Weight, total locomotive, pounds 530,000 550,000 “ on driving wheels, “ 458,000 336,000 “ guiding wheels, “ 72,000 214,000 Tractive Power, 1-Hour rating, forced vent 46,000 66,000 “ Continuous rating, forced vent. . . 42,000 49,000 Speed, Hour rating, MPH .... 26.4 22.7 “ Maximum safe, MPH 65. 65. Factor of adhesion, 1-Hour rating 9.98 5.09 Kind of Drive Direct Geared 65. Instead of a serious effort toward efficiency, economy, standardization or interchangeability, practically every mechan- ical and electrical detail in these two lots of five and 10 each locomotives produces radical engineering changes, and the factor of adhesion of 9.98 indicates an enormous amount of driven dead weight. In fact, there are 346,000 pounds in each of the five, and 286,000 pounds in each of the 10 locomotives, or more than the weight on the engine and tender trucks of a steam locomotive of like capacity, that are not needed to provide the required adhesion and which necessarily must be charged to the electrical apparatus. 66. Furthermore, to produce, at various hydro-electric or‘ steam power plants, electric current at say 6600 volts AC, step the same up to 100,000 volts AC, connect and transmit it from 100 to 300 miles through transmission lines to switching sub- stations located approximately 30 miles apart, step down to 2300 24 volts AC, and then convert into direct current at say 3000 volts for locomotive use, involves expensive lines, plants and equip- ment, as well as tremendous losses from the generator at the central power station to the bus bar on the direct current side of the transformer, where the current is usually metered for bill- ing. Also the secondary system, involving the distribution lines between sub-stations and the secondary line made up from the bonding of the rails or of a copper secondary line returning to the station, as well as the losses through the motors and the machine friction of the electric locomotive itself, are responsible for further losses in current, all of which, after allowing for say 10 percent regeneration, not only limit the capacity of the electric zone but also materially increase the arbitrary electric costs usually considered, so that it is safe to say that the actual dead loss in power from the central power station to the electric loco- motive drawbar will be not less than 50 percent. 67. In some of the published and confidential reports relat- ing to the St. Paul installation the only item of electric losses taken into consideration was between the high tension bus bars at the sub-station and the input to the motors on the locomotive, the losses between these two points being approximately 37 per- cent. With the sub-stations on the St. Paul spaced approximately 30 miles apart, and with 3,000 volts, there is a 600 volts drop between sub-stations under normal operation, and this is further increased by the power limiting apparatus which is designed to keep down the peak load. Therefore, the entire structure of estimated costs of comparative electric and steam operation seems to have been based on figures obtained after the power had been generated, transformed and transmitted, and the losses due to the various steps incident thereto neglected. 68. The number of factors entering into an analysis of the net thermal efficiency of the electric locomotive, in terms of draw- bar pull, are so many as to make it impossible with the lack of dynamometer car and laboratory test data, to arrive at a figure which is not based on a number of assumptions ; but as a matter of interest, assuming that all of the factors are affected equally in the electric locomotive, the net thermal efficiency at the draw- bar, when taking into consideration the boiler, engine, generator, step-up transformer, AC transmission, step-down transformer, AC-DC converter, DC transmission, motors, and machine efficien- cies may, as representative of average existing practice, be illustrated as in Table VII. 25 TABLE VII Net Load Rating Equipment Thermal Per Cent Per Cent 100 75 50 Boiler f Factor \ Efficiency 76.7 76 72 Engine / Factor (18.25) (18.29) (19 . 17) - X Efficiency 14 13.9 13.8 Generator f Factor X Efficiency (90) 12.6 (89.5) 12.44 (86) 11.88 Transformer, Step-up f Factor X Efficiency (98) 12.34 (96) 11.93 (90) 10.67 Transmission, AC f Factor X Efficiency (90) 11.10 (95) 11.32 (97) 10.34 Transformer, Step-down . . . f Factor X Efficiency (98) 10.87 (96) 10.85 (90) 9.30 Converter, AC to DC f Factor X Efficiency (80) 8.69 (75) 8.13 (63) 5.85 Distribution, DC f Factor \ Efficiency (90) 7.82 (95) 7.71 (97) 5.66 Motors, DC f Factor (91.5) (90.8) (89.5) \ Efficiency 7.15 7.00 5.05 Machine Drawbar f Factor \ Efficiency (81) 5.79 (85) 5.95 (90) 4.54 69. Likewise the net thermal efficiency of existing represen- tative steam locomotives, in terms of drawbar pull, may be illustrated in Table VIII. TABLE VIII Equipment Superheated or Saturated Steam Net Thermal Per Cent Load Rating Per Cent 10 0 75 50 Boiler { Superheated. 1 Saturated . . . [ Superheated. [ Saturated . . . f Superheated. 1 Saturated . . . f Factor \ Efficiency f Factor X Efficiency f Factor X Efficiency ( Factor X Efficiency f Factor X Efficiency f Factor X Efficiency 42.7 45.0 (11.9) 5.08 ( 7.8) 3.51 (75) 3.85 (77) 2.70 54.9 57.4 (11.0) 6.04 ( 8.4) 4.82 (80) 4.83 (80) 3.86 65.9 70.0 (10.5) 6.92 ( 7.8) 5.46 (85) 5.88 (82) 4.47 ! Cylinders Machine Drawbar. 26 70. Comparing the electric and steam locomotive figures as illustrated in Tables VII and VIII, the relative percentage of power delivered at the track rails to 100 percent BTU in the coal would be as per Table IX. TABLE IX Kind of Locomotive Net Thermal Efficiency at Load Ratings of 100 Per Cent 75 Per Cent 50 Per Cent Electric 5.79 5.95 4.54 Steam, Superheated 3.85 4.83 5.88 Steam, Saturated 2.70 3.86 4.47 71. As 100 percent load rating conditions would, in practice, occur only momentarily and as the majority of the drawbar load represents from 30 to 60 percent of the locomotive maximum drawbar capacity, comparison should properly be made only of the net thermal efficiencies at 50 percent load ratings. 72. As a check on the foregoing figures relating to steam operation, the tabulation of various laboratory dynamometer test performances of representative types of steam passenger and freight locomotives is presented as per Table X. 27 TABLE X LABORATORY DYNAMOMETER TEST PERFORMANCES OF REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF STEAM LOCOMOTIVES. Boiler Efficiency Percent X CD O CO CO ^ OOOOCOHO TTCOCOICIO© 75.09 67.15 e- co i> co CO CM CD -T © © ^ © © CD CO CD 05 OO C3 ii^COl' O CD O £— GO to CO 050000i>rH rf 05 CO £-03 £- © GO ^ — 05 © 30 £- 00 C- © t- © ^ © © TP — J © i— i © i> Machine Efficiency of Loco- motive Percent CO © CO 05 CO © I'HlOHOOTh CO TH £- CO O 05 00 OS 00 00 00 88.2 89.8 O i-l 05 t}i © © e- 35 h* 05 i> X) 05 00 GO CO CO £— 05 CO 05 CD t— i 3«H- 30 00 05 GO CO t-h © 00 30 © © tH CD CD 30 CO t- CO TJJ tD ID X) 00 £- GO fc~ © © © t- © © -P © © 00 © CO © © © rP © l> © 00 © © © 00 00 00 GO 00 t- Superheat in Branch Pipe Degrees Fahrenheit t-h to tH CO CO CO o 03 CO Tf 05 o cioooocoio 00 — O 00 05 00 195.0 260.0 tJJ CD £- 00 (M CO CO © © © 1— 1 T— 1 r— 1 I— 1 160.5 201.9 246.3 268.4 © © © t- ^ (M © H 03 (M Tjt © © © £- . © 00 00 © © © © t-h 1 t-h t-i 03 03 03 T-i Steam Pressure in Branch Pipe Lbs. OOSCDCOf-'# co © © os io 00 05 05 05 00 05 180.0 168.0 ©©•**© 35 CO Tfi CO 35 05 05 <35 © C— i— 1 CO 30 CD CO T* Tf "Ff CO CO CJ « N (M 03 00 00 tP © tP 03 © © 03 © 35 © © © © © HrlCHHHrl tJH rH © ^ ^ oo CO — < i-i © co © d © © © © © © © *“ 1 T - 1 t-H f— t H rH -rH Drawbar Pull Lbs. ^ O? oo © ^ © QOOrH^CQCO CM ©_© CD © © cm" i> t-h "d 05 T# CO CO IN r-1 H 23,115 29,128 (MOGOH CO CD 05 CO ■35 i— i co oo"' CD* CO* 'CP CO id CO 30 30 © 03 iO IO ©* CO* ©~ ©* C— * i> © © t- 03 i> © © -r © © |> ©3 03 CC © © © -^ CO ©* ©* t> ©* CO* 03* ©* 03 03 t-H t-h t — 1 t-H Drawbar Horse- power Lbs. O ^ CD t-h o O co e- eo co tji os t- CO t-h CM CO © (M io © nfi 1167.6 1994.9 945.4 1794.1 1941.3 2130.9 CO 05 ID GO 05 03 d CO © t> CO CO 30 -rfi CD tO H t'ffl © CM fc- t-h 03 -cr O O O i> © © TjH © 03 © © O -cfJ hji ^ rfi to CO BTU in Dry Coal as Fired o o o o o o ^ CO CO CO CO CO T-^ CO CO CO CO CO d" $5 ®0 CO* CO CO* 13,122 13,090 e- t- t* rf CO ^ ^ © 05^ q ©_ co CO* d" -d 1 1 1 I C- £- Hp to TP © © © © OO 03 © N N lO l- t" CO d d if rt! © 03 03 03 © © © ©©©©{>©£- -- £> £> i>-^© th © Tf Hfl T^l Tjt Dry Coal Consumed per Drawbar Horse power Hour Lbs. CO CD CM CO CD CO io CO CO CO CO CO 2.64 3.17 CO 1-1 00 05 00 CO 03 03 © -^ © 03 CO 03 TtJ © © i> © © TjH M 03 03 03 03 © 03 Thermal Efficiency of Locomo- tive Percent ^ CO 05 00 CO c- COiOlOlCIOcC 7.34 6.14 to 05 ^ © © © CO —1 o CO th O CD 00 CD CD tP i-> © h © © HHH©000 O i> GO {> © CO 03 £- © © i> © © t- ^ 03 03 © t- © © j> © © Speed in Miles per Hour © © i> © © © t> co os © t- © © ^ t- h oo © HrlH««CO 18.90 25.70 03 © © CO C- 03 © © © i> i> © © © © 03 © ^ © © £> © KIND OF LOCOMOTIVES Consolidation Freight 46,290 Lbs. T ractive Power @80 % Boiler Pressure Mikado Freight 54,587 Lbs. T ractive Power® 85% Boiler Pressure Mikado Freight 57,850 Lbs. Tractive Power (a 80% Boiler Pressure Decapod Freight 90,000 Lbs. Tractive Power (ft 75 % Boiler Pressure Pacific Passenger 30,700 Lbs. Tractive Power @ 80% Boiler Pressure Pacific Passenger 41,845 Lbs. T ractive Po wer@ 80 % Boiler Pressure 28 73. It will be noted that at speeds of from 15 to 75 miles per hour the existing superheated steam locomotive thermal efficiency actually ranges from 5.3 to 8.1 percent as compared with the calculated figures of from 4.83 and 5.88 percent for 75 and 50 per- cent load ratings, respectively. Adding to this an increase of from 15 to 50 percent in net thermal efficiency that may be pro- duced from developments now under way and the steam locomo- tive of the future will be quite a respectable assembly of engineering efficiency. 74. In a report made by the Hydro-Electric Power Com- mission of Ontario, on February 15, 1918, on the rate of coal consumption in 73 electric generating stations and industrial establishments in Canada and the United States, ranging from 150 to 150,000 kilowatts capacity, the following average figures are given as per Table XI. TABLE XI Average Size of Station Capacity COAL Load Factor Efficiency in Conversion of Heat Energy in Coal to Electric Energy at Switchboard B.T.U. per Pound Pounds per KW HP Per Cent KW Hour HP Hour 650 870 12,500 7.65 5.70 29.3 3.5 2,980 4,000 12,900 4.30 3.20 34.2 6.2 7,230 9,700 11,900 4.07 3.04 31.7 7.0 24,600 33,000 13,600 2.91 2.17 36.0 6.6 96,000 128,800 14,000 2.01 1.50 36.9 12.1 149,000 199,500 13,500 1.92 1.43 44.7 13.1 46,340 62,600 13,600 3.81 2.84 35.5 8.4 75. Comparing the foregoing with the laboratory test data on steam locomotives, it will be noted that the thermal efficiency at the switchboard of the largest stations is only about double that of the average steam locomotive at the drawbar. Cost for Enginemen 76. When the use of the electric locomotive was contem- plated it was thought that a single motorman could be substituted for the steam locomotive engineer and fireman. Under existing conditions this is neither permissible nor practical, and as each electric locomotive must carry a man comparable to but who does not function as a fireman, his wage is an added expense without economic return and must be charged to the cost of firing the central power station boilers or otherwise distributed. 29 Cost of Maintenance 77. In determining the maintenance cofet of the electric locomotive the popular error is to take into account the locomo- tive proper, whereas a true comparison can only be made by including all corresponding elements as found in the self-con- tained steam locomotive which goes back to the upkeep of all facilities having to do with the utilization of the fuel or water power, including the central power station buildings; boilers; engines; conversion, transmission, distributing and contact line systems ; sub-stations ; track rail bonding and insulation ; electric disturbance cut-outs or neutralizers; extra expense in upkeep of the electric zone trackage ; and like auxiliaries and finally the electric locomotive itself. 78. With particular reference to the maintenance cost figures that have been given out as applying to the New York Central, Michigan Central, Pennsylvania and St. Paul railroads for the years 1913 to 1918 inclusive, and which range from $3.78 to $10.87 per 100 locomotive miles run, these no doubt apply to the electric locomotive units only, and if so would appear excep- tionally high even for relatively new built steam locomotives. While it is true that during the first few years of life the expense for maintenance of electrical equipment is low, after that time the deterioration of the insulation necessitates constant testing and renewal, which entails great expense and delay to say nothing of frequent failures and partial or complete destruction. Conse- quently until a true reflection of the investment interest, depreci- ation, taxes and insurance and the upkeep cost per electric locomotive mile and per 1000 gross ton miles hauled, can be given by including all the factors and elements of age and mechanism that are embodied in the steam locomotive, all comparisons will be worthless. Peak LooA Conditions in Relation to Traffic Requirements 79. With the steam locomotive the traffic requirements are met by the distribution and utilization of the necessary number of self-contained motive power units as required, regardless as to the capacity of one or more central power stations or of any limitation in quantity, or in price, of the total available power output. The operation of one or of 500 steam locomotives at their maximum capacity at any given or for any duration of time on a single division, is of no concern. 80. However, in order to meet the ideal conditions for electrification, the traffic should be uniformly spread or scattered over the 24-hour period, whereas in the majority of cases train movement is based on traveling and shipping conditions and cannot be advanced or delayed in order to eliminate peak load 30 conditions. That this cannot be done in order to maintain a straight line power demand can be illustrated by citing the con- dition that exists in any large industrial center where freight accumulates and is switched during the day period and the out and inbound train movements concentrate in fleets, principally in the evening and morning, respectively, and cause peak load requirements at those times. To contemplate a change in indus- trial working hours or conditions, or in the movement of live- stock and perishable freight in order to overcome these limiting rnd troublesome peaks by equalizing the movement would be out of the question. Ease of Starting Trains 81. Due to the uniform torque as developed by the electric locomotive, its adherents have laid great stress on its ability to start a heavier train than a steam locomotive of relatively the same tractive power and factor of adhesion. In steam railroad service the locomotive is seldom required to start “the train” but what it does is to start each car in the train, successively, and which nullifies this theoretical advantage of the electric locomo- tive. In fact, with steam locomotives of the Mallet and other types having compound cylinders equipped with properly designed simpling devices the starting power is increased about 20 percent as compared with electric locomotives of equivalent road rating. Rate of Acceleration 82. In order that the desired running speeds may be reached in the minimum of time after the starting of trains, the ability of a locomotive to rapidly accelerate its load is of considerable importance, and in this respect the electric power has had the advantage. The steam locomotive engineer has, however, not lost sight of this fact and improvements already made in boiler and cylinder horsepower ratios, as well as developments now undergoing for the utilization of existing non-productive adhesive weight and to increase the co-efficient of friction between the propelling wheels and the track rails will enable the steam locomotive to duplicate the performance of its electric competitor in this regard. Train Braking 83. Since the development of regenerative braking with the electric locomotive, great emphasis has been laid on the increased securitv of operation over heavy grade lines due to the ability of the locomotive to hold the train under complete and positive control on the down grade without breaks, by temporarily con- verting the main motors into generators to produce electricity 31 which is returned to the line for use by some other locomotive in pulling a train. Considerable attention has also been directed to the saving brought about through the elimination of the ordinary air braking on such down grades. 84. The Baltimore and Ohio has, with steam locomotives, successfully and safely handled its heavy tonnage and dense traffic on the Cumberland and Connellsville Divisions for many years with the ordinary air brake equipment, and this tonnage descends a grade averaging approximately 2.2 percent for 17 miles, at an average speed of from 15 to 20 miles per hour for freight, and from 25 to 30 miles per hour for passenger trains, without slow-downs or stops. This performance is comparable with that on the worst grade conditions in the St. Paul electrified zone, and while an increase in the capacity of freight cars to as high as 120 tons, as those now in use on the Virginian and Nor- folk and Western, makes the factor of train braking an important one, the use of the improved light and loaded car air brake equipments solves that question in a safe and efficient manner. 85. While the regenerative system of braking can probably be developed to a point where it can be safely used without the train air brake, it is problematical as to what economy will result, as' evidenced by the recent serious accident on the St. Paul wherein a heavy tonnage freight train made up with an electric locomotive at the head end and a steam Mallet helper locomotive at the rear end, broke away from the latter and derailed the entire train of about 65 cars on a 20 mile grade of 2.2 percent, due to the failure of the regenerative brake control. When the power so generated cannot be directly used by another pulling locomotive on the line, it must be otherwise absorbed, and it remains for the electrical engineers to prove just how much of it is lost in conversion or by absorption and the resulting net gain as compared with the investment, fixed charge and upkeep and operating cost for the equipment involved. Effect of Weather Conditions 86. Even though the full steaming capacity, horsepower and drawbar pull of a modern steam locomotive can be developed during cold weather conditions, there are the factors of radiation and freezing to be reckoned with, which gives the electric loco- motive the advantage in winter, particularly, as its effectiveness is greater on account of the lesser tendency for the motors to overheat. This winter advantage, however, is largely overbal- anced during the summer when the main motors heat, especially under overloads, and require cooling at terminals or otherwise overheat and result in insulation break-downs or burn-outs, or other troubles. 32 87. Anyone using the electrified service of the New York Central or the New York, New Haven & Hartford out of Grand Central Terminal is aware of the noise from the continual use of blowers for cooling the transformers and main motors when locomotives are at rest, and of the insulation troubles which are not only the cause for delays and fires, but for the destruction of entire locomotive units and the complete tying up for hours of the dual railroad system traffic pending relief by steam loco- motives. Road Delays and Tie-Ups 88. While the electric locomotive has the advantage of not being required to take on fuel and water, except for the operation of steam heating equipment for passenger trains, with the in- creased capacity of the modern steam locomotive tenders, and the lower water and fuel rates per drawbar horsepower devel- oped, the delays due to taking on these supplies have been greatly reduced and need not be serious. Delays in taking water have long since been entirely eliminated through the use of track troughs, and with modern fueling facilities either coal or oil can be quickly supplied, where necessary, between terminals. 89. While the hours of service law; points of origination, gathering, classification, distribution and interchange of traffic ; and like factors, rather than the distances that individual loco- motives can be run, regulate the distance of solid train runs without breaking up and re-classification, still the modern steam locomotive is not seriously lacking as regards continuous and monthly mileage capacity. In fact, in view of steam locomotive mileages obtainable, i. e., from 400 to 600 miles per round trip, and from 10,000 to 12,000 miles per month, no less an authority on, and promoter of, modern constructive steam railroads than Mr. L. F. Loree, contemplated as early as 1908 the running of through fast freight trains between Baltimore and Chicago with single pulling locomotives, assisted by helpers as necessary, over ruling grades. Mr. Loree’s idea was to make a steamship opera- tion of a locomotive and freight train, but the difficulty in work- ing out satisfactory engine and train crew arrangement, and not the inability of the steam locomotive to make the run, was re- sponsible for the abandonment of the project. 90. However, a demonstration along this line was recently made by the Baltimore and Ohio when a train of 70 empty coal cars leaving Jersey City on July 11th at 12:30 A. M. reached Rockwood, Pa., at 9 o’clock the next morning, the train movement of 415 miles having been accomplished in 321^ hours, or at a speed of about 307 miles per freight car per day. 91. Barring collisions, wrecks and like accidents not due to the system of motive power in use, steam operation is not sus- 33 ceptible to complete tie-ups as is the case with electrification, where short circuits or failures occur due to rains, floods, storms and like causes, and as the result of motor, wiring and insulation heating, deterioration and break-downs, as the individual mobil- ity of each piece of motive power without regard to any outside source of power enables quick relief. This has not only been repeatedly demonstrated on the New York Central, New Haven, and Long Island electrified sections, but in several instances it has resulted in serious stoppage and congestions of traffic, the most notable of which was that on the New Haven in December and January, 1915-1916, when on account of a blizzard, steam locomotives had to be substituted for the entire electrical opera- tion, due to break-down of the communication and control sys- tem and the failure of insulators, grounding arcs and short cir- cuits in connection with the over-head transmission and feeder lines. Terminal Delays 92. The examination of reports of a dense heavy freight traffic railroad in the Eastern District shows the time of its steam locomotives for a recent two months' period distributed as follows: 1. In road service 50 % of total time 2. At terminals, awaiting trains and other- wise in hands of Transportation Department 26.4% of total time 3. At terminals in hands of Mechanical Department 23.6% of total time 93. There is no doubt but that the electric has an advantage over the steam locomotive as regards time required for periodical boiler work, fire cleaning and rebuilding, fueling and watering except where fuel oil is used, but where terminal delays occur due to waiting for trains, such as the foregoing statement sets forth, the time required for such work does not become an ex- pensive determining factor in the daily average miles to be obtained per locomotive. Also the fact that the electric loco- motive cannot, without terminal rest periods or otherwise the consumption of power to operate auxiliaries, operate at its maxi- mum capacity, must not be overlooked. Furthermore, many im- provements in the fuel and ash handling and combustion equip- ment of the steam locomotives using coal are now in process and terminal delays due to these causes, as well as to lack of proper engine house facilities for quick despatchment, are annually being reduced by improved means and methods. 34 Hazards 94. With the establishing of more scientific and careful methods of designing, testing and inspection, and the more ex- tended use of safety appliances, the failures of steam locomotive boilers and machinery, particularly those resulting in personal injury, are relatively low as compared with the work performed. It is therefore doubtful if there is any greater proportion of risk from the steam locomotive in that regard than from electrocu- tion and other attendant dangers from high voltage electrifica- tion. 35 Discussion of Papers on the Relative Advantages of Modern Steam and Electric Locomotives By Me. George Gibbs Chief Engineer , Electric Traction , Long Island Railroad October 22, 1920. In discussing this subject it is permissible, I presume, to view it from the standpoint of either design or performance. It concerns the relative advantages of two kinds of power plants for conducting railway transportation. In steam service the plant is a part of the moving train; in electric it has both stationary and moving elements, viz., a central power-generating plant, various connecting links to bring the power to the train, and means of utilizing it there. As regards simplicity, therefore, the self-contained steam locomotive has an inherent advantage over the combination of elements required for electric propulsion, and the latter must show some peculiar advantages in an operating, rather than a structural,, sense if it is to supersede steam traction. Further- more, the steam locomotive has been developed to a perfection of detail and a high degree of steam economy during the one hundred years of its use; it does wonderful work, and is in possession of the field, representing a heavy money investment and can, therefore, be displaced (even by something better) only by slow degrees. So I think railway men can discuss this new rival of the steam locomotive with calmness and should cooperate with our enthusiastic electrical friends in giving their sugges- tions a trial ; you never can tell what good may develop out of a thin" especially when one does not fully understand its pos- sibilities. I speak as a steam railway man — that was my bring- ing up, and I confess to a sneaking fondness for the reliable old “iron horse,” and may be pardoned for frankness. But I am also sufficiently “in” with the new order of things to make plain speaking to my electrical friends proper and to suggest to them due modesty in making their claims. We want cooperation of both sides in the development of a useful new traction means. This is especially desirable now, as the paramount necessity of the country is more and better transportation. If it can be furnished through electric traction, in particular cases as a starter, we should know it now. I cannot go into technical details tonight, but I think our electrical friends will concede, and mechanical men must, in light of sufficient evidence furnished by existing installations, that an electric system will function in a successful, reliable and efficient manner for any kind of railway service. It is capable of unlimited hauling capacity, is flexible as to speed and has 36 important features conducing to safety in handling trains. It is, however, to the fundamental question affecting its adoption which I wish to draw attention. “Is the substitution of electric for steam haulage warranted by its advantages in the production of more transportation, and if so, is it practicable financially ?” No sweeping generalization to the effect that electric traction will be used because it functions well will impress railway man- agers; they must have the answer to the above question. Now, as regards the first portion of this query, it would appear that there are a number of important situations in which electric traction will produce results which cannot be had by the steam locomotive, notably in increasing existing track capac- ity, especially on lines having heavy grades, in yard shifting, in suburban and terminal services, and in locations (such as in tunnels) , where the absence of combustion is necessary or desir- able. Such installations should be undertaken if financially feasible, and this can only be determined by a critical examina- tion of each case. Assuming that the money can be raised for an improvement which will pay, it will be found that electric traction will pay, directly or indirectly, in the special cases to an extent depending upon the density of traffic and the difficulty of maintaining proper steam operation. It must be admitted that an electric installation involves a higher first cost than for steam, in fact, its adoption means that more or less existing investment must be scrapped, therefore, the increase in fixed charges must be offset either by the direct operating savings produced or these plus the indirect savings and benefits. The latter may mean avoidance of permanent way additions, a per- missible change in operating methods, more traffic moved, and new kinds of traffic produced. The direct savings have been under discussion tonight; in spite of some difference in opinion, I think we cannot escape the conclusion that there is always a large saving in fuel with electric traction, generally some sav- ing in maintenance cost of “power equipment’' and often im- portant savings in train crew costs, engine house expenses, minor supplies, etc. Sometimes these “direct” savings will be sufficient to return a handsome profit over and above charges; if not the indirect savings must be included. It will avoid future disappointment if we face the facts; the electrification of the railways of the country as a whole, or the electrification of the whole of any extensive component system, is neither practicable nor desir- able, measured by costs and results; the doom of the steam locomotive has not been sounded and will not be in our time. But the fact that electrification is not universally applicable should not discourage anyone ; it has a very large and profitable field (both for the railways and the manufacturers). These facts indicate the importance of carefully investigating each proposed application to insure that it is properly conceived and carried out. 37 Discussion of Papers on the Relative Advantages of Modern Steam and Electric Locomotives By Mr. A. W. Gibbs Chief Mechanical Engineer , Pennsylvania System October 22, 1920. I have read with much interest the papers on steam versus electric operation of railroads, and cannot but feel that both Messrs. Muhlfeld and Armstrong have been a bit too enthusias- tic. Both methods of operating have their advantages and both have decided limitations. In Mr. Armstrong’s case his data is largely derived from mountain electrification, where the electric locomotive is un- doubtedly at its best and the steam at its worst, and he has compared with it a type of steam locomotive whose coal and water rate is more than double that of locomotives which are especially designed for such service. Then on this mountain performance he reasons from the particular to the general ap- plication of electric operation. True, he puts in a disclaimer as to the particular steam locomotives referred to representing the best modern practice, which brings up the question — Why cite them at all? It is not at all certain that the speed advantage claimed is by any means true where the steam locomotive is designed for the work. On page 3 he gives a comparative statement of the perform- ance of two steam and one electric locomotives to which excep- tion can be taken because the steam locomotives do not represent the last word as to those available, and the electric locomotive is on paper. I submit data for a 2-10-0 type steam locomotive of which over 100 are in regular service and of which, fortunately, very full information is available from the locomotive testing plant. These locomotives were expressly designed to do all of their work within the economical range of steam distribution, the re- quired power being obtained by increases in size of cylinders and steam pressure. While I have given the power at nearly the speed mentioned by Mr. Armstrong, the performance is excel- lent at double the sneeds